"I majored in Sharia law at the University of Havana."
January 17, 2016 4:27 PM Subscribe
Bill Maher hilariously parodies the Republican candidates' wildly inaccurate descriptions of what Bernie Sanders says by providing examples of what the Republican candidates might hear when they listen to Sanders speak on various political issues. (SLYT)
Bill O’Reilly will flee to Ireland if Sanders is elected
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:48 PM on January 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:48 PM on January 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
Just one more reason that we need Sanders to win, I guess.
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:05 PM on January 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:05 PM on January 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
Bill O’Reilly will flee to Ireland if Sanders is elected
Fook's sake, let's warn 'em.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:26 PM on January 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
Fook's sake, let's warn 'em.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:26 PM on January 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
I still think Clinton is going to win but my certainty is wavering. This could be a repeat of 2008?
posted by Justinian at 5:51 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:51 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
(The reason I still think Clinton will win is that she has something this year that Obama had locked up in 2008; the African American vote.)
posted by Justinian at 5:51 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:51 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just because he's an O'Reilly doesn't mean Ireland wants him back.
This is going to turn into the debate thread, isn't it.
posted by emjaybee at 5:54 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is going to turn into the debate thread, isn't it.
posted by emjaybee at 5:54 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, yes it is.
posted by Justinian at 5:57 PM on January 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:57 PM on January 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
I still think Clinton is going to win but my certainty is wavering. This could be a repeat of 2008?
Honestly I think I'm coming down with the Bern and I don't know what to do. Imagine electing a *real* *socialist* after eight years of "Secret Socialist Obama" memes? The perfect storm of karmic backlash.
posted by sallybrown at 5:58 PM on January 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
Honestly I think I'm coming down with the Bern and I don't know what to do. Imagine electing a *real* *socialist* after eight years of "Secret Socialist Obama" memes? The perfect storm of karmic backlash.
posted by sallybrown at 5:58 PM on January 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
God, captain snoozeface is still in these debates? Go home, O'Malley.
posted by Justinian at 6:05 PM on January 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:05 PM on January 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Preach, Hils!
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:09 PM on January 17, 2016
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:09 PM on January 17, 2016
What was that bit from the SNL sketch? "I'm Martin O'Malley, and I did so well as mayor of Baltimore that they made two television shows about it: Homicide and The Wire!"
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:09 PM on January 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:09 PM on January 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
Bern seems a little off tonight....
posted by mochapickle at 6:13 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mochapickle at 6:13 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton seems to have moved left on a lot of things. If she wins the nom, will she keep that up without Sanders breathing down her neck?
posted by emjaybee at 6:22 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by emjaybee at 6:22 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
No.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:22 PM on January 17, 2016 [48 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:22 PM on January 17, 2016 [48 favorites]
Bernie Sanders Can Win. When Will He Believe That?
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:26 PM on January 17, 2016
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:26 PM on January 17, 2016
Bernie Sanders Can Win. When Will He Believe That?
If the past year proves anything, though, it’s that skepticism of the conventional wisdom is urgently in order.
And yet that author seems to wholeheartedly embrace the conventional wisdom that one candidate can't win without attacking the other, or that a candidate who compliments his rival's answers doesn't "really want" the nomination...
posted by sallybrown at 6:31 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
If the past year proves anything, though, it’s that skepticism of the conventional wisdom is urgently in order.
And yet that author seems to wholeheartedly embrace the conventional wisdom that one candidate can't win without attacking the other, or that a candidate who compliments his rival's answers doesn't "really want" the nomination...
posted by sallybrown at 6:31 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
If she wins the nom, will she keep that up without Sanders breathing down her neck?
Not if her campaign donors have anything to say about it, and they will.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:34 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not if her campaign donors have anything to say about it, and they will.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:34 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can we just gong O'Malley and drag him off the stage?
posted by mochapickle at 6:36 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by mochapickle at 6:36 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Imagine electing a *real* *socialist* after eight years of "Secret Socialist Obama" memes?
Sanders being a socialist is just as much of a meme.
posted by Dalby at 6:46 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders being a socialist is just as much of a meme.
posted by Dalby at 6:46 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The nine most tedious words in the English language: "Hi, I'm Martin O'Malley and I'm here to debate."
posted by vathek at 6:47 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by vathek at 6:47 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
That "Congratulations on your 5 million YouTube views, that's quite an accomplishment" from Hillary to the YouTube vlogger was some high-quality shade.
posted by sallybrown at 6:48 PM on January 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:48 PM on January 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bill Maher acting really superior for a guy who has said some truly awful things about Muslims.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 6:49 PM on January 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 6:49 PM on January 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
He's said some pretty rancid shit about women too. I don't watch him.
posted by emjaybee at 6:51 PM on January 17, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 6:51 PM on January 17, 2016 [29 favorites]
The nine most tedious words in the English language: "Hi, I'm Martin O'Malley and I'm here to debate."
He hasn't mentioned Hamsterdam even once, why else is he still up there?
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:52 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
He hasn't mentioned Hamsterdam even once, why else is he still up there?
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:52 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I do like how Lester Holt is mostly insistent on cutting people off when their time is up. The Jeopardy buzzer they use in the republican debates is routinely ignored.
posted by peeedro at 6:53 PM on January 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 6:53 PM on January 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Gotta admit, I keep trying and failing to imagine Sanders dealing with Vladimir Putin.
posted by emjaybee at 7:00 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 7:00 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I do like how Lester Holt is mostly insistent on cutting people off when their time is up. The Jeopardy buzzer they use in the republican debates is routinely ignored.
In Canadian debates (some? I know I've seen it) there's a little countdown light and when your time is up, your microphone turns off.
I would love to see this taken a step farther: Have a panel of people (Figuring out/training these people to be neutral would be the tricky part) watching the debate in another room. Have them hit a button if the person speaking isn't actually answering the question they were asked. If 2/3 of people are holding down the button the microphone turns off. Now here's the important part: The candidates don't know if their microphones are on or off. So they can't test the limits, all they can do to make sure they're heard is make sure they're answering the question.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:03 PM on January 17, 2016 [43 favorites]
In Canadian debates (some? I know I've seen it) there's a little countdown light and when your time is up, your microphone turns off.
I would love to see this taken a step farther: Have a panel of people (Figuring out/training these people to be neutral would be the tricky part) watching the debate in another room. Have them hit a button if the person speaking isn't actually answering the question they were asked. If 2/3 of people are holding down the button the microphone turns off. Now here's the important part: The candidates don't know if their microphones are on or off. So they can't test the limits, all they can do to make sure they're heard is make sure they're answering the question.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:03 PM on January 17, 2016 [43 favorites]
Wow. I didn't think Bill Maher could release a video that didn't make me reflexively cringe at least once. Maybe I need to lay down for a little bit? Nothing Islamaphobic, misogynistic, or aggressively atheistic? Wow.
After the State of the Union speech I am totally one hundred and one percent refueled for another year of American Politics. I really like Sanders even though I don't think he's as dashing and charismatic as my tumblr feed keeps telling me he is. As much as the Republican Clown Car is the real draw I really love that there are two democratic nominees who are keeping things really interesting and that Bernie is pushing Clinton a little further left. I have heard that here are other democrats running but I can't even remember their names or what they look like. And none of them got a pep speech by DJ Khaled so, you know.
posted by Neronomius at 7:10 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
After the State of the Union speech I am totally one hundred and one percent refueled for another year of American Politics. I really like Sanders even though I don't think he's as dashing and charismatic as my tumblr feed keeps telling me he is. As much as the Republican Clown Car is the real draw I really love that there are two democratic nominees who are keeping things really interesting and that Bernie is pushing Clinton a little further left. I have heard that here are other democrats running but I can't even remember their names or what they look like. And none of them got a pep speech by DJ Khaled so, you know.
posted by Neronomius at 7:10 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gotta admit, I keep trying and failing to imagine Sanders dealing with Vladimir Putin.
He'll probably need a few minutes to find his bearings in the arena, but after that I assume he'll just use some of the local minerals and herbs to manufacture a makeshift fireworks display reading THE PEOPLE UNITED at which Putin will break down sobbing and tear off his leotard to reveal a smaller leotard underneath with SHALL NEVER BE DEFEATED written on it, and the age of global socialism will begin.
That night there will be cannons as the face of Adam Smith is projected in the sky.
posted by No-sword at 7:14 PM on January 17, 2016 [34 favorites]
He'll probably need a few minutes to find his bearings in the arena, but after that I assume he'll just use some of the local minerals and herbs to manufacture a makeshift fireworks display reading THE PEOPLE UNITED at which Putin will break down sobbing and tear off his leotard to reveal a smaller leotard underneath with SHALL NEVER BE DEFEATED written on it, and the age of global socialism will begin.
That night there will be cannons as the face of Adam Smith is projected in the sky.
posted by No-sword at 7:14 PM on January 17, 2016 [34 favorites]
The Jeopardy buzzer they use in the republican debates is routinely ignored.
Everybody wants to be Reagan.
posted by jon1270 at 7:22 PM on January 17, 2016
Everybody wants to be Reagan.
posted by jon1270 at 7:22 PM on January 17, 2016
so I'm thinking
"Bill Maher... eh, I hate him for being a sexist, racist, homophobic tool, but maybe I should just try not being a curmudgeon so much. I'll watch this video and just shut up about his past and enjoy it. I'm sure it won't be a big deal. I'm probably blowing things out of proportion, anyway."
*plays video*
at 1:30: "... a faggy little car with three tires"
"Well, fuck that, I guess."
posted by koeselitz at 7:30 PM on January 17, 2016 [38 favorites]
"Bill Maher... eh, I hate him for being a sexist, racist, homophobic tool, but maybe I should just try not being a curmudgeon so much. I'll watch this video and just shut up about his past and enjoy it. I'm sure it won't be a big deal. I'm probably blowing things out of proportion, anyway."
*plays video*
at 1:30: "... a faggy little car with three tires"
"Well, fuck that, I guess."
posted by koeselitz at 7:30 PM on January 17, 2016 [38 favorites]
That's ok. All I hear when Maher talks is "RELIGION BAD! MUSLIMS BAD!" He reminds me of a less-orange Trump.
posted by Docrailgun at 7:46 PM on January 17, 2016
posted by Docrailgun at 7:46 PM on January 17, 2016
Bernie just said he want's Saudi Arabia and Iran to team up to defeat ISIS. What? He is really out of his depth as soon as anything foreign policy related comes up.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:49 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:49 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
As much as I love Sanders, I have to admit Clinton is stronger on foreign policy. She'd make a pretty good Secretary of State.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:52 PM on January 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:52 PM on January 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
The weird thing about the video is they could have just cut between real statements by Sanders, and Trump's bombast, and it would have been hilarious. There is no need to make up stupid stuff because Trump is basically a living caricature of himself.
As for the debates, I could handle 5 minutes of it. To be honest, Martin O'Malley was looking kind of good, shame he never even got a chance. I think I'm more in agreement with Bernie Sanders on the issues, aside from his kind of shameful position on guns, but the whole time I watched I was thinking "I wish Hillary and Bernie had even an iota of President Obama's charisma."
The are both such uninspiring candidates, how are they going to get people to the polls? I'm terrified of the republicans and its going to take every ounce of willpower I have to vote, and I work a cushy white collar job.
Ugh, I wish President Obama could run for a third term.
posted by getting_back_on_track at 7:54 PM on January 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
As for the debates, I could handle 5 minutes of it. To be honest, Martin O'Malley was looking kind of good, shame he never even got a chance. I think I'm more in agreement with Bernie Sanders on the issues, aside from his kind of shameful position on guns, but the whole time I watched I was thinking "I wish Hillary and Bernie had even an iota of President Obama's charisma."
The are both such uninspiring candidates, how are they going to get people to the polls? I'm terrified of the republicans and its going to take every ounce of willpower I have to vote, and I work a cushy white collar job.
Ugh, I wish President Obama could run for a third term.
posted by getting_back_on_track at 7:54 PM on January 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'd vote for Michelle Obama, but I think she's too smart to want the job.
posted by peeedro at 7:56 PM on January 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 7:56 PM on January 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
I was very pleased Sec. Clinton took her time at the end to talk about the situation in Flint.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:58 PM on January 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:58 PM on January 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
While I'd certainly happily vote for Sanders over any of the Republican kookies I think he's too much of a lightweight on anything not related to the economy for my support in the primary. I never got that feeling from Obama even though he didn't have experience there either. Don't know why that is.
posted by Justinian at 8:16 PM on January 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:16 PM on January 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wow. I didn't think Bill Maher could release a video that didn't make me reflexively cringe at least once. Maybe I need to lay down for a little bit? Nothing Islamaphobic, misogynistic, or aggressively atheistic? Wow.
I could have done without the gay jokes.
posted by not that girl at 8:29 PM on January 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
I could have done without the gay jokes.
posted by not that girl at 8:29 PM on January 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
The GOP was down to 16 seats in the Senate after 1936.
Things are stacked differently now, alas.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:47 PM on January 17, 2016
Things are stacked differently now, alas.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:47 PM on January 17, 2016
In general the sight of Bill Maher's face makes me throw up a little in my mouth, but this video was pretty funny. Could have done fine without the use of the word "faggy" though :/ whatever.
posted by bracems at 8:56 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bracems at 8:56 PM on January 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie Sanders Ft. Drake - Where Ya At?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:11 PM on January 17, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:11 PM on January 17, 2016
Sanders is right that campaign finance is the main issue. Elect him with that mandate.
posted by chaz at 9:13 PM on January 17, 2016
posted by chaz at 9:13 PM on January 17, 2016
Honestly I think I'm coming down with the Bern and I don't know what to do. Imagine electing a *real* *socialist* after eight years of "Secret Socialist Obama" memes? The perfect storm of karmic backlash.
Let's get one thing clear. The hard right don't hate Obama because he's slightly to the left of Nixon. Socialist has become yet another dog whistled code word. They hate Obama because he's black and he's better than them.
posted by Talez at 9:35 PM on January 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
Let's get one thing clear. The hard right don't hate Obama because he's slightly to the left of Nixon. Socialist has become yet another dog whistled code word. They hate Obama because he's black and he's better than them.
posted by Talez at 9:35 PM on January 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
Bernie just said he want's Saudi Arabia and Iran to team up to defeat ISIS. What? He is really out of his depth as soon as anything foreign policy related comes up.
It's an inverse King Solomon. Whichever one says yes and volunteers to destory ISIS with the help of the other is really on our side.
posted by Talez at 9:39 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's an inverse King Solomon. Whichever one says yes and volunteers to destory ISIS with the help of the other is really on our side.
posted by Talez at 9:39 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary is our best chance if the Republicans nominate anyone but Rubio. Next to Hillary, the non-Rubio candidates are all very obvious about being dangerously insane. Bernie is not insane, but it's easy for Republicans to make him look insane.
If Rubio is nominated, we might actually be better off with Bernie. Rubio is another George W. Bush -- a hard-right candidate who says just enough of the right things to make himself look moderate. If he's the GOP nominee, it'll be Bush v. Gore all over again. A middle-of-the-road Democrat vs. a "Compassionate Conservative". And we all know how that movie ends. Oh, and Rubio has an advantage in Florida. Oy vey.
But the Republicans will not nominate Rubio. The Republican electorate wants catharsis, and Rubio will not give them that. The only way he'll win is through a brokered convention, which would cause so much bad blood, a crucial number of Republicans would stay home on voting day, or maybe even Trump would run as an independent. But that's just wishful thinking.
So I'm backing Hilary. The smartest thing the Republicans can do is back Rubio, and that's exactly why they aren't going to do it.
Hillary will be elected, and she'll be a sane, boring, responsible adult just like Obama, and with all the shit going on in this country (and the world), I'd be happy with a sane, boring, responsible adult. She's not going to choose Bernie as a VP, because that would undermine her status as "the non-crazy one". She'll choose someone whom we don't care about who will stay out of the way. And really, I'll be fine with all this. And maybe, just maybe in the last two years of her second term, she'll flip into DGAF mode and say some hilarious shit and maybe do a few things that'll make us all happy. And that I look forward to.
posted by panama joe at 9:52 PM on January 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
If Rubio is nominated, we might actually be better off with Bernie. Rubio is another George W. Bush -- a hard-right candidate who says just enough of the right things to make himself look moderate. If he's the GOP nominee, it'll be Bush v. Gore all over again. A middle-of-the-road Democrat vs. a "Compassionate Conservative". And we all know how that movie ends. Oh, and Rubio has an advantage in Florida. Oy vey.
But the Republicans will not nominate Rubio. The Republican electorate wants catharsis, and Rubio will not give them that. The only way he'll win is through a brokered convention, which would cause so much bad blood, a crucial number of Republicans would stay home on voting day, or maybe even Trump would run as an independent. But that's just wishful thinking.
So I'm backing Hilary. The smartest thing the Republicans can do is back Rubio, and that's exactly why they aren't going to do it.
Hillary will be elected, and she'll be a sane, boring, responsible adult just like Obama, and with all the shit going on in this country (and the world), I'd be happy with a sane, boring, responsible adult. She's not going to choose Bernie as a VP, because that would undermine her status as "the non-crazy one". She'll choose someone whom we don't care about who will stay out of the way. And really, I'll be fine with all this. And maybe, just maybe in the last two years of her second term, she'll flip into DGAF mode and say some hilarious shit and maybe do a few things that'll make us all happy. And that I look forward to.
posted by panama joe at 9:52 PM on January 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
Sanders is right that campaign finance is the main issue.
I would say the main issue is the electoral system itself.
Come November, I'm only going to have one choice for President, the other will be rather repulsive to me.
I suspect this will also be true for people who vote the other way.
And why is this country so divided now on so many issues? We keep fighting old battles here, afraid of the future, of making it a better place.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:02 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would say the main issue is the electoral system itself.
Come November, I'm only going to have one choice for President, the other will be rather repulsive to me.
I suspect this will also be true for people who vote the other way.
And why is this country so divided now on so many issues? We keep fighting old battles here, afraid of the future, of making it a better place.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:02 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary's foreign policy skills are greater than Bernie's, but I think the same can be said for her bloodlust. I've a Syrian friend who, expecting her to win, is already planning for the invasion.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:37 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:37 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thank God Obama managed to keep her bloodlust in check while she was SoS. I heard she wanted to invade Canada.
posted by bgal81 at 10:46 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 10:46 PM on January 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I also have a friend....
posted by futz at 11:10 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 11:10 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
panama joe: "But the Republicans will not nominate Rubio. The Republican electorate wants catharsis, and Rubio will not give them that. The only way he'll win is through a brokered convention, which would cause so much bad blood, a crucial number of Republicans would stay home on voting day, or maybe even Trump would run as an independent. But that's just wishful thinking. "
This is fair enough as pure speculation, but it's probably worth pointing out that that's all it is: speculation. We have absolutely no idea who will win the primary. I'll repeat that, because everyone seems to have forgotten it: we have absolutely no idea who will win the primary. In the field of political polling, primary polling is the absolute worst as far as reliability, to the point where we may as well just basically call it useless and ignore it. And even if polling were accurate, primary elections are (I think) the ripest field for electoral shenanigans and cheating, for polling booths to be magicked to malfunction and such; they aren't taken quite as seriously as the general, so there's a lot of room for fudging results, particularly if somebody powerful somewhere really feels like it's important to get a particular person under the wire.
I think Democrats count on a Trump primary win at their peril.
posted by koeselitz at 11:37 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is fair enough as pure speculation, but it's probably worth pointing out that that's all it is: speculation. We have absolutely no idea who will win the primary. I'll repeat that, because everyone seems to have forgotten it: we have absolutely no idea who will win the primary. In the field of political polling, primary polling is the absolute worst as far as reliability, to the point where we may as well just basically call it useless and ignore it. And even if polling were accurate, primary elections are (I think) the ripest field for electoral shenanigans and cheating, for polling booths to be magicked to malfunction and such; they aren't taken quite as seriously as the general, so there's a lot of room for fudging results, particularly if somebody powerful somewhere really feels like it's important to get a particular person under the wire.
I think Democrats count on a Trump primary win at their peril.
posted by koeselitz at 11:37 PM on January 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who we clearly need is Alexander Hamilton.
posted by syncope at 12:23 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by syncope at 12:23 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well at least he wouldn't throw away his shot.
posted by Justinian at 12:39 AM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:39 AM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Hillary's foreign policy skills are greater than Bernie's, but I think the same can be said for her bloodlust."
She is, by all signs, considerably less hawkish than she used to be... and a lot of that hawkishness was in an environment nearly a decade ago where she -- and Obama -- had to play up their hawkishness, in order to come off as credible on military matters.
If you take a look at her actions in the State Department, most of what we see from her is carrot-and-stick, as opposed to actual militarism. She worked both sides of the street, both working for sanctions and pressure on Iran, for example, and initiating our first diplomatic backchannel negotiations with them, with the goal of lifting sanctions.
Similarly, she was criticized for being one of those threatening Syria if it didn't give up its WMDs after they started using them on civilians, but time and time again, diplomacy was given more time and deadlines were bent to allow for more negotiations.
Lastly, at the debate, she basically said that what the US should do in regards to Daesh is... more of the same, with no ground troops, and our efforts largely focused on training and air support... and mostly in Iraq, as opposed to Syria. She also backed a no-fly zone in Syria.
The simple truth is that the whole country has changed significantly over the last decade or two, as far as awareness is concerned on a whole bunch of issues. All reasonable people have changed in their attitudes... and I see nothing that suggests to me that Hillary is anything but reasonable. She is not just saying the right things in regards to these new realities, but also developing actual policies that reflect those new realities. She's a wonk. Developing policies is something she loves about this kind of work, and she's good at the details of it.
Fear is an awful thing in US politics. Democrats have often had to negotiate that minefield, mirroring the fears of their constituents. It took Democrats -- and the overwhelmingly scared, NIMBY feedback of their supporters -- to keep the prisoners in Guantanamo out of US prisons, cut off from legal protections, for example. And there was a helluva lot of fear in post 9/11 New York. Hillary once saw her hawkishness as a requirement and an asset, under different circumstances. She now seems to see it as a liability if she pushes it too far, but still an asset when it comes to being taken seriously on diplomatic initiatives, and in assuaging the fears of many scared, irrational Americans traumatized by the threat of terror.
I'm not concerned about Hillary's bloodlust, or her unwillingness to support more progressive policies. That said, I do not think that either her or Bernie will be able to implement those policies in the way we would all prefer, due to Repubican obstructionism.
No matter which candidate Democrats select, there's a lot of frustration due after the election, when they once more find themselves blocked by the GOP. I think Hillary Clinton would be better at negotiating in such an environment. I also think that if she is targeted by Republicans like I think she'll be, women will rise up to defend her -- and the Democrats -- in large numbers, and will become more politically engaged and more prone to supporting the Democrats, which will pay big dividends over time. Surprisingly enough, Hillary is a fairly nice person, despite the attempts to demonize her.
I'm more concerned about people who would keep the Republicans out of power not staying involved in the political process, especially after the election is won. Political change is *HARD*, but that gradual process is finally starting to pay some dividends. Democrats can't afford to give away some very hard-won gains.
"I still think Clinton is going to win but my certainty is wavering."
Clinton is still clearly winning this thing. She damn near won in 2008, and actually got more votes than Obama, so for me, the best indicator of Bernie's viability is whether he can do roughly as well as Obama did in 2008. And, after looking into it earlier today, all the indications are that he still isn't anywhere near that level of support. He trails considerably against Obama in 2008 at this time, and trails decisively when it comes to superdelegates. (All the data I am using can be found by googling the 2008 and 2016 democratic primaries in question on realclearpolitics, btw.)
Nationally, Clinton was polling 4 points ahead in the Rasmussen poll of 1/19/2008. Reuters poll of 1/13/08 put her just 1 point ahead. The current RealClearPolitics average for this year is Clinton ahead by 12.7 points. The most recent poll they have on RCP this year -- NBC -- puts her ahead by 25 points. That's a shift of between, say, 8.7 and 21 points in Clinton's favor in this election at this point.
When it came to polling for the Iowa Caucuses, The RealClearPolitics average for who would win Iowa in January 2008 was Obama by 1.6%. The last major Reuters poll before the 2008 Iowa caucuses gave Obama a 4% lead. Compare this to RealClearPolitics' latest average in Iowa.. a four point lead for Clinton.
When it came to New Hampshire, Obama polled 8.3% ahead in 2008 at this time in the race, though Hillary came from behind to win, thanks to a strong GOTV effort, drawing in many, many surrogate campaigners, volunteers, and campaign workers from her HQ in New York to help. The current RealClearPolitics average for New Hampshire is Sanders by 6.2%... not quite as good as Obama in '08, and definitely within reach of a Clinton victory, if she can do the same kind of get out the vote push she did in 2008.
For Nevada, Clinton polled just a point or two ahead, on average, at this point of the race in January 2008.This time around, she is polling an average of 19.5 points ahead, according to RCP, with her last poll showing a 23 point lead. Bernie is well behind Obama there.
For South Carolina, Obama polled 15 points ahead according to Rasmussen on 1/21/08. In comparison, Bernie is polling an average of 40 points behind. That's huge. No doubt, part of the reason Clinton is adopting Obama's legacy is that it will help her to secure Obama's supporters in states like South Carolina and throughout the South. The state has more delegates than any of the states prior to it, and if it delivered for Hillary with just a 20 point margin, that would almost assuredly be enough to give her the total delegate lead in the race, no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire.
If 2008 is any indication, winning Iowa is hardly a guarantee of outperforming in New Hampshire, and winning in New Hampshire is hardly going to give you a win in Nevada or South Carolina. These are all very different states, who value voting early, and who want to shape the election, rather than be shaped by it. I don't see strength for Bernie materializing out of nowhere in a whole bunch of states, even if he does win Iowa and New Hampshire... and right now, that still looks pretty unlikely among top pollsters.
And none of this factors in the superdelegates, who are overwhelmingly committed to support Clinton's campaign, along with basically all the leaders of their party. If they vote as they have indicated they will, Bernie could get a big victory in New Hampshire and *still* lose the delegate count there... and if he can't win next door to Vermont, there is no way he can win the election.
Really, I view it more like a situation where it seems your beautiful pet has been hit by a truck. How much are you willing to put your pet through, in an attempt to save their life? You know that if you fight, there will be some bad days ahead. Are you going to invest a ton of your money, time, and emotional energy, in the slim hope you can drag things out and gradually turn things around? And what if you lose? Are you going to be turned off on ever having a pet again, to your detriment... or maybe you should just be a bit more accepting, let your beloved pet move on, and open your heart to a mutt?
Either choice beats having your house overrun by a colony of rats.
posted by markkraft at 12:54 AM on January 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
She is, by all signs, considerably less hawkish than she used to be... and a lot of that hawkishness was in an environment nearly a decade ago where she -- and Obama -- had to play up their hawkishness, in order to come off as credible on military matters.
If you take a look at her actions in the State Department, most of what we see from her is carrot-and-stick, as opposed to actual militarism. She worked both sides of the street, both working for sanctions and pressure on Iran, for example, and initiating our first diplomatic backchannel negotiations with them, with the goal of lifting sanctions.
Similarly, she was criticized for being one of those threatening Syria if it didn't give up its WMDs after they started using them on civilians, but time and time again, diplomacy was given more time and deadlines were bent to allow for more negotiations.
Lastly, at the debate, she basically said that what the US should do in regards to Daesh is... more of the same, with no ground troops, and our efforts largely focused on training and air support... and mostly in Iraq, as opposed to Syria. She also backed a no-fly zone in Syria.
The simple truth is that the whole country has changed significantly over the last decade or two, as far as awareness is concerned on a whole bunch of issues. All reasonable people have changed in their attitudes... and I see nothing that suggests to me that Hillary is anything but reasonable. She is not just saying the right things in regards to these new realities, but also developing actual policies that reflect those new realities. She's a wonk. Developing policies is something she loves about this kind of work, and she's good at the details of it.
Fear is an awful thing in US politics. Democrats have often had to negotiate that minefield, mirroring the fears of their constituents. It took Democrats -- and the overwhelmingly scared, NIMBY feedback of their supporters -- to keep the prisoners in Guantanamo out of US prisons, cut off from legal protections, for example. And there was a helluva lot of fear in post 9/11 New York. Hillary once saw her hawkishness as a requirement and an asset, under different circumstances. She now seems to see it as a liability if she pushes it too far, but still an asset when it comes to being taken seriously on diplomatic initiatives, and in assuaging the fears of many scared, irrational Americans traumatized by the threat of terror.
I'm not concerned about Hillary's bloodlust, or her unwillingness to support more progressive policies. That said, I do not think that either her or Bernie will be able to implement those policies in the way we would all prefer, due to Repubican obstructionism.
No matter which candidate Democrats select, there's a lot of frustration due after the election, when they once more find themselves blocked by the GOP. I think Hillary Clinton would be better at negotiating in such an environment. I also think that if she is targeted by Republicans like I think she'll be, women will rise up to defend her -- and the Democrats -- in large numbers, and will become more politically engaged and more prone to supporting the Democrats, which will pay big dividends over time. Surprisingly enough, Hillary is a fairly nice person, despite the attempts to demonize her.
I'm more concerned about people who would keep the Republicans out of power not staying involved in the political process, especially after the election is won. Political change is *HARD*, but that gradual process is finally starting to pay some dividends. Democrats can't afford to give away some very hard-won gains.
"I still think Clinton is going to win but my certainty is wavering."
Clinton is still clearly winning this thing. She damn near won in 2008, and actually got more votes than Obama, so for me, the best indicator of Bernie's viability is whether he can do roughly as well as Obama did in 2008. And, after looking into it earlier today, all the indications are that he still isn't anywhere near that level of support. He trails considerably against Obama in 2008 at this time, and trails decisively when it comes to superdelegates. (All the data I am using can be found by googling the 2008 and 2016 democratic primaries in question on realclearpolitics, btw.)
Nationally, Clinton was polling 4 points ahead in the Rasmussen poll of 1/19/2008. Reuters poll of 1/13/08 put her just 1 point ahead. The current RealClearPolitics average for this year is Clinton ahead by 12.7 points. The most recent poll they have on RCP this year -- NBC -- puts her ahead by 25 points. That's a shift of between, say, 8.7 and 21 points in Clinton's favor in this election at this point.
When it came to polling for the Iowa Caucuses, The RealClearPolitics average for who would win Iowa in January 2008 was Obama by 1.6%. The last major Reuters poll before the 2008 Iowa caucuses gave Obama a 4% lead. Compare this to RealClearPolitics' latest average in Iowa.. a four point lead for Clinton.
When it came to New Hampshire, Obama polled 8.3% ahead in 2008 at this time in the race, though Hillary came from behind to win, thanks to a strong GOTV effort, drawing in many, many surrogate campaigners, volunteers, and campaign workers from her HQ in New York to help. The current RealClearPolitics average for New Hampshire is Sanders by 6.2%... not quite as good as Obama in '08, and definitely within reach of a Clinton victory, if she can do the same kind of get out the vote push she did in 2008.
For Nevada, Clinton polled just a point or two ahead, on average, at this point of the race in January 2008.This time around, she is polling an average of 19.5 points ahead, according to RCP, with her last poll showing a 23 point lead. Bernie is well behind Obama there.
For South Carolina, Obama polled 15 points ahead according to Rasmussen on 1/21/08. In comparison, Bernie is polling an average of 40 points behind. That's huge. No doubt, part of the reason Clinton is adopting Obama's legacy is that it will help her to secure Obama's supporters in states like South Carolina and throughout the South. The state has more delegates than any of the states prior to it, and if it delivered for Hillary with just a 20 point margin, that would almost assuredly be enough to give her the total delegate lead in the race, no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire.
If 2008 is any indication, winning Iowa is hardly a guarantee of outperforming in New Hampshire, and winning in New Hampshire is hardly going to give you a win in Nevada or South Carolina. These are all very different states, who value voting early, and who want to shape the election, rather than be shaped by it. I don't see strength for Bernie materializing out of nowhere in a whole bunch of states, even if he does win Iowa and New Hampshire... and right now, that still looks pretty unlikely among top pollsters.
And none of this factors in the superdelegates, who are overwhelmingly committed to support Clinton's campaign, along with basically all the leaders of their party. If they vote as they have indicated they will, Bernie could get a big victory in New Hampshire and *still* lose the delegate count there... and if he can't win next door to Vermont, there is no way he can win the election.
Really, I view it more like a situation where it seems your beautiful pet has been hit by a truck. How much are you willing to put your pet through, in an attempt to save their life? You know that if you fight, there will be some bad days ahead. Are you going to invest a ton of your money, time, and emotional energy, in the slim hope you can drag things out and gradually turn things around? And what if you lose? Are you going to be turned off on ever having a pet again, to your detriment... or maybe you should just be a bit more accepting, let your beloved pet move on, and open your heart to a mutt?
Either choice beats having your house overrun by a colony of rats.
posted by markkraft at 12:54 AM on January 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Is... Bernie Sanders the dog in this scenario? I think he's the dog.
posted by Justinian at 1:12 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:12 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who we clearly need is Alexander Hamilton.
A seasoned backroom power broker who is in favor of a muscular foreign policy and fond of big business? I think we've got one of those already.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:28 AM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
A seasoned backroom power broker who is in favor of a muscular foreign policy and fond of big business? I think we've got one of those already.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:28 AM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Bill O’Reilly will flee to Ireland if Sanders is elected
Don't tell him we just legalised gay marriage by a landslide in a popular vote.
posted by kersplunk at 4:25 AM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Don't tell him we just legalised gay marriage by a landslide in a popular vote.
posted by kersplunk at 4:25 AM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
To be honest, "locking John McCain in his office and speak Vietnamese" is something Trump would claim to do and be cheered about.
posted by lmfsilva at 6:01 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by lmfsilva at 6:01 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie just said he want's Saudi Arabia and Iran to team up to defeat ISIS. What? He is really out of his depth as soon as anything foreign policy related comes up.
Um, Iran and Russia are currently on the ground in Syria fighting ISIS, along with other rebel groups. The problem for us is that they are backing the Assad regime, which we don't like.
Saudi Arabia is a U.S. "ally" in the region, even though they like playing both ends against the middle. They've certainly been involved with us in the past militarily.
Both countries are enemies of ISIS, along with the everyone else in the world.
It is not crazy to call for the cooperation of countries in the region to deal with a regional problem.
Such a solution is certainly more practical than current U.S. policy, which is to try and support the "right" kind of rebels in Syria, who are somehow supposed to set up a Jeffersonian Democracy in the country.
The U.S. and other Western powers simply don't have the means to change the political culture in the Middle East on a large scale to create stable polities without either relying on existing dictators or having partners in the region.
Portraying Sanders as a lightweight in this matter over statements like this plays into a dangerous kind of interventionism that never works out for the U.S.
posted by eagles123 at 7:08 AM on January 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Um, Iran and Russia are currently on the ground in Syria fighting ISIS, along with other rebel groups. The problem for us is that they are backing the Assad regime, which we don't like.
Saudi Arabia is a U.S. "ally" in the region, even though they like playing both ends against the middle. They've certainly been involved with us in the past militarily.
Both countries are enemies of ISIS, along with the everyone else in the world.
It is not crazy to call for the cooperation of countries in the region to deal with a regional problem.
Such a solution is certainly more practical than current U.S. policy, which is to try and support the "right" kind of rebels in Syria, who are somehow supposed to set up a Jeffersonian Democracy in the country.
The U.S. and other Western powers simply don't have the means to change the political culture in the Middle East on a large scale to create stable polities without either relying on existing dictators or having partners in the region.
Portraying Sanders as a lightweight in this matter over statements like this plays into a dangerous kind of interventionism that never works out for the U.S.
posted by eagles123 at 7:08 AM on January 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Who we clearly need is Alexander Hamilton.
A seasoned backroom power broker who is in favor of a muscular foreign policy and fond of big business? I think we've got one of those already.
I think you're forgetting about Hamilton's mad flow.
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:23 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
A seasoned backroom power broker who is in favor of a muscular foreign policy and fond of big business? I think we've got one of those already.
I think you're forgetting about Hamilton's mad flow.
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:23 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
The are both such uninspiring candidates, how are they going to get people to the polls? I'm terrified of the republicans and its going to take every ounce of willpower I have to vote, and I work a cushy white collar job.
I'm having difficulty figuring out how you can call Bernie uninspiring when he's shattered individual donor records and has absolutely crazy amounts of people show up for his rallies in the PRIMARIES.
If anyone is going to excite the base to get out and vote, it's gonna be Bernie. I'm obviously a Bernie supporter and he has a tough fight, but I would never call him uninspiring.
posted by mayonnaises at 7:31 AM on January 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I'm having difficulty figuring out how you can call Bernie uninspiring when he's shattered individual donor records and has absolutely crazy amounts of people show up for his rallies in the PRIMARIES.
If anyone is going to excite the base to get out and vote, it's gonna be Bernie. I'm obviously a Bernie supporter and he has a tough fight, but I would never call him uninspiring.
posted by mayonnaises at 7:31 AM on January 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
Voters who generally vote Democratic have to learn to go to the polls regardless of whether the Democratic candidate has "rock star" appeal, however that is defined. If turnout during midterms was the same as turnout during general elections, this country would look a lot different.......
That being said, I am heartened that the Sanders campaign at least seems to be trying to build a movement, which is what will be needed to counteract the influence of big money and conservative organizing through business groups, right wing churches, and gun clubs.
Personally, I view Sanders as kind of a "hail Mary" play for Democrats. If you look past the craziness surrounding the Republican Presidential primary, the Republicans currently control the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and most state governments. Clinton, if she wins the Democratic primary, most likely would be able to beat a Trump or Cruz, but I can't see her getting through two terms.
Gotta admit, I keep trying and failing to imagine Sanders dealing with Vladimir Putin.
How exactly does one "deal" with the leader of another world power, especially one that controls the largest or second largest nuclear arsenal on the planet? Mud wrestling?
posted by eagles123 at 7:48 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
That being said, I am heartened that the Sanders campaign at least seems to be trying to build a movement, which is what will be needed to counteract the influence of big money and conservative organizing through business groups, right wing churches, and gun clubs.
Personally, I view Sanders as kind of a "hail Mary" play for Democrats. If you look past the craziness surrounding the Republican Presidential primary, the Republicans currently control the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and most state governments. Clinton, if she wins the Democratic primary, most likely would be able to beat a Trump or Cruz, but I can't see her getting through two terms.
Gotta admit, I keep trying and failing to imagine Sanders dealing with Vladimir Putin.
How exactly does one "deal" with the leader of another world power, especially one that controls the largest or second largest nuclear arsenal on the planet? Mud wrestling?
posted by eagles123 at 7:48 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gotta admit, I keep trying and failing to imagine Sanders dealing with Vladimir Putin.
"Tell you what, we're gonna keep doing our thing and fixing our country. We're going to help our allies in Europe and help out where we can and are wanted. You can go and beat your chest and we'll be waiting over here for when you start acting like an adult and then we'll welcome you back with open arms."
That's what I would expect anyway.
posted by Talez at 8:44 AM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Tell you what, we're gonna keep doing our thing and fixing our country. We're going to help our allies in Europe and help out where we can and are wanted. You can go and beat your chest and we'll be waiting over here for when you start acting like an adult and then we'll welcome you back with open arms."
That's what I would expect anyway.
posted by Talez at 8:44 AM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
I've only ever seen Bernie on TV but I like to imagine him being incredibly foul-mouthed in private.
posted by charred husk at 9:02 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by charred husk at 9:02 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maureen Dowd: still the worst.
If you can make it past the opening paragraph of that piece, your stomach is much stronger than mine. I can only imagine what kind of vile shit she's going to be excreting onto the pages of the paper of record in October.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:19 AM on January 18, 2016
If you can make it past the opening paragraph of that piece, your stomach is much stronger than mine. I can only imagine what kind of vile shit she's going to be excreting onto the pages of the paper of record in October.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:19 AM on January 18, 2016
How exactly does one "deal" with the leader of another world power, especially one that controls the largest or second largest nuclear arsenal on the planet? Mud wrestling?
Yeah, I would pretty much expect any political leader who pronounces themselves "tough" on Putin to say all sorts of facile grandstanding threatening things purely for domestic audiences, perhaps with a McCain "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations" thrown in, and then in the end do all the same sanctioning and politely asking them to not do whatever it is they're doing.
posted by XMLicious at 9:34 AM on January 18, 2016
"If anyone is going to excite the base to get out and vote, it's gonna be Bernie."
I hear about this "base" all the time from Sanders supporters, but the fact is, the base -- those core supporters who reliably vote Democrat, rain or shine -- are mainly Hillary supporters.
She has built a coalition of not only her own prior supporters, but large swathes of Obama's supporters, precisely because she worked so hard to bring the party together after the last contentious election. In the process, she took a lot of hits for the POTUS, and ran the State Department during a particularly trying time, diplomatically. She's also played a major role in the Clinton Global Initiative, which has gotten about $200 billion -- this amount doubling every 2-3 years -- in new commitments from the wealthy and powerful to help those who aren't.
It's great that Sanders attracts a lot of voters outside the base of the party. Hopefully, some of them will vote this year.
posted by markkraft at 9:45 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hear about this "base" all the time from Sanders supporters, but the fact is, the base -- those core supporters who reliably vote Democrat, rain or shine -- are mainly Hillary supporters.
She has built a coalition of not only her own prior supporters, but large swathes of Obama's supporters, precisely because she worked so hard to bring the party together after the last contentious election. In the process, she took a lot of hits for the POTUS, and ran the State Department during a particularly trying time, diplomatically. She's also played a major role in the Clinton Global Initiative, which has gotten about $200 billion -- this amount doubling every 2-3 years -- in new commitments from the wealthy and powerful to help those who aren't.
It's great that Sanders attracts a lot of voters outside the base of the party. Hopefully, some of them will vote this year.
posted by markkraft at 9:45 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
"If anyone is going to excite the base to get out and vote, it's gonna be Bernie."
I guess it depends on what base you're talking about. White men seem excited by Sanders but women and minorities, not so much. In that poll, Clinton beats Sanders by 61 points among black voters.
posted by octothorpe at 9:57 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess it depends on what base you're talking about. White men seem excited by Sanders but women and minorities, not so much. In that poll, Clinton beats Sanders by 61 points among black voters.
posted by octothorpe at 9:57 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders: Oh sure, Hillary, Wall Street thinks you're great and you'll always be adored by things you create.
Clinton: Bernie, that was a real nice declaration. Welcome to the present, we're running a real nation.
O'Malley: I wanna be in the room where it happens :(
posted by bgal81 at 10:03 AM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton: Bernie, that was a real nice declaration. Welcome to the present, we're running a real nation.
O'Malley: I wanna be in the room where it happens :(
posted by bgal81 at 10:03 AM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I hear about this "base" all the time from Sanders supporters, but the fact is, the base -- those core supporters who reliably vote Democrat, rain or shine -- are mainly Hillary supporters.
She has built a coalition of not only her own prior supporters, but large swathes of Obama's supporters, precisely because she worked so hard to bring the party together after the last contentious election. In the process, she took a lot of hits for the POTUS, and ran the State Department during a particularly trying time, diplomatically. She's also played a major role in the Clinton Global Initiative, which has gotten about $200 billion -- this amount doubling every 2-3 years -- in new commitments from the wealthy and powerful to help those who aren't.
Speak for yourself. I've voted Democratic in every election I could since I could vote. I've also worked to elect Democrats. I'm for Sanders. I'll vote for Clinton in the general, but the dishonest attacks from her campaign against Sander's health plan, as well her worrying hawkishness, just make it certain that I'll have to hold my nose even harder.
Clinton definitely has a base of support among hard core democrats, so you don't need to quote polls at me, but that base simply isn't enough to govern the country. I'll repeat what I said above: Republicans control the House, the Supreme Court, the Senate, and most state governments. Clinton, fair or not, is a divisive figure whose disapprovals are already over 50 percent. In contrast, Obama started his term with 70 percent approval. The entire plan of the Clinton campaign appears to be to rely on a turning out partisan Democrats to win a narrow victory in the popular vote. I'm simply not comfortable with the idea that Donald Trump is the Democrat's best shot for a convincing win.
Moreover, Sanders beats Clinton handily among young people. Millennials recently passed Boomers as the largest generation. Clinton's support quite simply is weak among that age group. That might not make a difference in this election because older voters are more likely to vote, but going forward, each year millennials will make up a larger portion of the population. Clinton's weakness among voters who will eventually decide elections is very concerning. If it weren't for Sanders, the only Presidential candidate actively appealing to young voters would be Rand Paul....... Again, the idea that Donald Trump is Democrat's best bet for attracting these voters by scaring them is not cause for celebration.
As for the last part, Clinton's charity network is great in the nobless oblige sense. It's just a shame that so much of it doesn't seem to "trickling down". Maybe in a more just society such charity wouldn't be needed.
I guess it depends on what base you're talking about. White men seem excited by Sanders but women and minorities, not so much. In that poll, Clinton beats Sanders by 61 points among black voters.
There is truth to this statement. However, Sanders also handily beats Clinton among young people. Millennials are a much more diverse generation than the Boomers or Gen X. There is a disconnect there. We'll see which way it breaks if the primary stretches beyond the early states.
posted by eagles123 at 10:25 AM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
She has built a coalition of not only her own prior supporters, but large swathes of Obama's supporters, precisely because she worked so hard to bring the party together after the last contentious election. In the process, she took a lot of hits for the POTUS, and ran the State Department during a particularly trying time, diplomatically. She's also played a major role in the Clinton Global Initiative, which has gotten about $200 billion -- this amount doubling every 2-3 years -- in new commitments from the wealthy and powerful to help those who aren't.
Speak for yourself. I've voted Democratic in every election I could since I could vote. I've also worked to elect Democrats. I'm for Sanders. I'll vote for Clinton in the general, but the dishonest attacks from her campaign against Sander's health plan, as well her worrying hawkishness, just make it certain that I'll have to hold my nose even harder.
Clinton definitely has a base of support among hard core democrats, so you don't need to quote polls at me, but that base simply isn't enough to govern the country. I'll repeat what I said above: Republicans control the House, the Supreme Court, the Senate, and most state governments. Clinton, fair or not, is a divisive figure whose disapprovals are already over 50 percent. In contrast, Obama started his term with 70 percent approval. The entire plan of the Clinton campaign appears to be to rely on a turning out partisan Democrats to win a narrow victory in the popular vote. I'm simply not comfortable with the idea that Donald Trump is the Democrat's best shot for a convincing win.
Moreover, Sanders beats Clinton handily among young people. Millennials recently passed Boomers as the largest generation. Clinton's support quite simply is weak among that age group. That might not make a difference in this election because older voters are more likely to vote, but going forward, each year millennials will make up a larger portion of the population. Clinton's weakness among voters who will eventually decide elections is very concerning. If it weren't for Sanders, the only Presidential candidate actively appealing to young voters would be Rand Paul....... Again, the idea that Donald Trump is Democrat's best bet for attracting these voters by scaring them is not cause for celebration.
As for the last part, Clinton's charity network is great in the nobless oblige sense. It's just a shame that so much of it doesn't seem to "trickling down". Maybe in a more just society such charity wouldn't be needed.
I guess it depends on what base you're talking about. White men seem excited by Sanders but women and minorities, not so much. In that poll, Clinton beats Sanders by 61 points among black voters.
There is truth to this statement. However, Sanders also handily beats Clinton among young people. Millennials are a much more diverse generation than the Boomers or Gen X. There is a disconnect there. We'll see which way it breaks if the primary stretches beyond the early states.
posted by eagles123 at 10:25 AM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
> those core supporters who reliably vote Democrat, rain or shine -- are mainly Hillary supporters
Unfortunately, you also need to engage the supporters who don't reliably vote at all to actually win an election. This is the "electability" argument but in different words.
How do you think appealing to those core voters who reliably vote Republican, rain or shine, is helping out the cause of the less extreme GOP candidates? Why have they moved more and more towards the extreme in the Senate and House? It's not by just appealing to that core that will always vote for them....
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:29 AM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Unfortunately, you also need to engage the supporters who don't reliably vote at all to actually win an election. This is the "electability" argument but in different words.
How do you think appealing to those core voters who reliably vote Republican, rain or shine, is helping out the cause of the less extreme GOP candidates? Why have they moved more and more towards the extreme in the Senate and House? It's not by just appealing to that core that will always vote for them....
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:29 AM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Unfortunately, you also need to engage the supporters who don't reliably vote at all to actually win an election. This is the "electability" argument but in different words.
Who reliably votes in the Presidential races is different from who reliably votes during the Midterms. That's part of the problem for the Democrats.
posted by bgal81 at 11:07 AM on January 18, 2016
Who reliably votes in the Presidential races is different from who reliably votes during the Midterms. That's part of the problem for the Democrats.
posted by bgal81 at 11:07 AM on January 18, 2016
I think it's comparatively easy for white men to vote for whatever ideological, not-ready-for-prime-time, half-baked, or straight out kooky racist thing that comes along, precisely because they have more privilege and more opportunities, and will be fine either way.
Black voters, latino voters, LGBT voters, and women all tilt heavily towards Clinton... and I think there's good reason for that, especially when you listen to the rhetoric of the Republicans, and look at what the Democrats have tried to do to advance their rights, even in the face of Republican bigotry. And I think the latest national polls support that fact, with Hillary actually gaining a lot of the Biden / O'Malley / undecided Democrat vote.
Hillary's supporters aren't robots. They're realists, who absolutely need the Republicans kept out of office to protect their rights, their jobs, and their families, all which have been directly threatened by the GOP candidates running for office.
This, frankly, is not going to be a change election with a sweeping majority in the House and Senate, no matter how much we all might wish it to be. It's a slog, where Democrats need to reach out to expand and strengthen their demographically emergent coalition, so it can begin to reverse the gerrymandering and last-ditch efforts of the GOP to keep the majority from ruling.
It would be nice to get more white males involved in the process, but, let's face it... white males are a HUGE part of the problem in this country, both as far as obstructing the kind of changes that most Americans can get behind, or, for white progressives, by simply not being very good, reliable allies along the way. They aren't where most of the future growth of this nation and this party is coming from.
The democgraphic shift in America and the emergence of minorities as real political powers at the national level excites me. The idea of having more women in the workplace, making equal pay, with real help with childcare and more involvement in boardrooms and in the political arena excites me. Equal rights for all Americans excites me. And these things matter a lot more to me than whether one candidate would like to raise the top tax to 65% but lacks the ability to do so, vs. another candidate wanting to raise the top tax to 50% while lacking the ability to do so.
posted by markkraft at 11:10 AM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Black voters, latino voters, LGBT voters, and women all tilt heavily towards Clinton... and I think there's good reason for that, especially when you listen to the rhetoric of the Republicans, and look at what the Democrats have tried to do to advance their rights, even in the face of Republican bigotry. And I think the latest national polls support that fact, with Hillary actually gaining a lot of the Biden / O'Malley / undecided Democrat vote.
Hillary's supporters aren't robots. They're realists, who absolutely need the Republicans kept out of office to protect their rights, their jobs, and their families, all which have been directly threatened by the GOP candidates running for office.
This, frankly, is not going to be a change election with a sweeping majority in the House and Senate, no matter how much we all might wish it to be. It's a slog, where Democrats need to reach out to expand and strengthen their demographically emergent coalition, so it can begin to reverse the gerrymandering and last-ditch efforts of the GOP to keep the majority from ruling.
It would be nice to get more white males involved in the process, but, let's face it... white males are a HUGE part of the problem in this country, both as far as obstructing the kind of changes that most Americans can get behind, or, for white progressives, by simply not being very good, reliable allies along the way. They aren't where most of the future growth of this nation and this party is coming from.
The democgraphic shift in America and the emergence of minorities as real political powers at the national level excites me. The idea of having more women in the workplace, making equal pay, with real help with childcare and more involvement in boardrooms and in the political arena excites me. Equal rights for all Americans excites me. And these things matter a lot more to me than whether one candidate would like to raise the top tax to 65% but lacks the ability to do so, vs. another candidate wanting to raise the top tax to 50% while lacking the ability to do so.
posted by markkraft at 11:10 AM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
"How do you think appealing to those core voters who reliably vote Republican, rain or shine, is helping out the cause of the less extreme GOP candidates? Why have they moved more and more towards the extreme in the Senate and House?"
Comparing people stuck in a media and societal bubble of divinely sanctioned lies, jingoism, xenophobia, sexism, and overt racism to those who aren't is perhaps not the best way to frame this argument.
posted by markkraft at 11:32 AM on January 18, 2016
Comparing people stuck in a media and societal bubble of divinely sanctioned lies, jingoism, xenophobia, sexism, and overt racism to those who aren't is perhaps not the best way to frame this argument.
posted by markkraft at 11:32 AM on January 18, 2016
>ready-for-prime-time, half-baked, or straight out kooky racist thing that comes along, precisely >because they have more privilege and more opportunities, and will be fine either way.
Maybe we can start by refraining from insinuating the Sanders is a kook. I'll assume that the "racist" term is in reference to Trump supporters, and that you are just grouping Trump and Sanders supporters together for some reason.
>Black voters, latino voters, LGBT voters, and women all tilt heavily towards Clinton... and >I think there's good reason for that, especially when you listen to the rhetoric of the >Republicans, and look at what the Democrats have tried to do to advance their rights, even in >the face of Republican bigotry. And I think the latest national polls support that fact, with Hillary >actually gaining a lot of the Biden / O'Malley / undecided Democrat vote.
>Hillary's supporters aren't robots. They're realists, who absolutely need the Republicans kept out >of office to protect their rights, their jobs, and their families, all which have been directly >threatened by the GOP candidates running for office.
And yet according to this aggregation of polls, Hillary Clinton is viewed unfavorably by 52 percent of Americans. What that tells me is that Clinton has little prospect of expanding the Democratic base beyond whoever Trump/insert Republican can scare into voting Democratic.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
It also tells me that what gains the party will make below the Presidency likely will come because of a favorable Senate map and turnout in a Presidential election year. Those gains will then be washed away in the inevitable midterm disaster for Democrats in 2018. You say you are being a realist by backing Hillary. I say I am being a realist by recognizing the looming disaster for Democrats post 2016 if the party continues on its current course.
There also is the small problem that national primary polling from before the primaries start simply isn't very predictive of where those polls will end up once the primaries actually start. You can already see the polls starting to tighten on the aggregators:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
I'm not saying that means Sanders will win, he might not even win a state, but let's actually wait until the votes are cast, shall we?
The strategy of marginalizing both Sanders and his supporters has played a large part in the overall strategy of the Clinton campaign. Fair enough, it is somewhat understandable why the Clinton campaign is doing this from a selfish perspective, but that doesn't mean I am not going to call it out for what it is.
From where I sit, the strategy of Clinton campaign is suicidal for Democrats over the long term because it seems to drive away just as many people as it attracts by fomenting distrust and division. It's almost like the Democrats forgot how Obama won.
And then there is this:
>It would be nice to get more white males involved in the process, but, let's face it... white >males are a HUGE part of the problem in this country, both as far as obstructing the kind of >changes that most Americans can get behind, or, for white progressives, by simply not being >very good, reliable allies along the way. They aren't where most of the future growth of this >nation and this party is coming from.
And yet Sanders wins among millennials, the most diverse generation in American history:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/move-over-berniebros-a-wave-of-young-women-is-boosting-bernie-sanders-20160112
http://mic.com/articles/132370/bernie-sanders-is-crushing-it-among-young-voters-a-new-poll-shows#.cpCAggY2n
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/109242/20160117/2016-democratic-presidential-polls-bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-by-19-points-among-women-millennials-heading-into-fourth-debate.htm
Hillary Clinton does currently have more support among Black and Hispanic Americans than Sanders, but characterizing Sanders support as just coming from young white guys is simply wrong.
That being said, Democrats do still need to appeal to white voters. I guess I'll be the one to point out that inconvenient truth. The geography of this country ensures that Democrats will have trouble winning House elections at both the national and state level for the rest of my lifetime without doing better among white voters. Democrats will have trouble keeping the Presidency too if the Republicans manage to convince people that whoever they are running is a moderate (hi Marco Rubio).
>The democgraphic shift in America and the emergence of minorities as real political >powers at the national level excites me. The idea of having more women in the workplace, >making equal pay, with real help with childcare and more involvement in boardrooms and in the >political arena excites me. Equal rights for all Americans excites me. And these things matter a l>ot more to me than whether one candidate would like to raise the top tax to 65% but lacks the >ability to do so, vs. another candidate wanting to raise the top tax to 50% while lacking the >ability to do so.
These things excite me too. I'll be even more excited when we have a political system that can actually make ideals like "equal rights for all Americans" a reality.
posted by eagles123 at 12:24 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe we can start by refraining from insinuating the Sanders is a kook. I'll assume that the "racist" term is in reference to Trump supporters, and that you are just grouping Trump and Sanders supporters together for some reason.
>Black voters, latino voters, LGBT voters, and women all tilt heavily towards Clinton... and >I think there's good reason for that, especially when you listen to the rhetoric of the >Republicans, and look at what the Democrats have tried to do to advance their rights, even in >the face of Republican bigotry. And I think the latest national polls support that fact, with Hillary >actually gaining a lot of the Biden / O'Malley / undecided Democrat vote.
>Hillary's supporters aren't robots. They're realists, who absolutely need the Republicans kept out >of office to protect their rights, their jobs, and their families, all which have been directly >threatened by the GOP candidates running for office.
And yet according to this aggregation of polls, Hillary Clinton is viewed unfavorably by 52 percent of Americans. What that tells me is that Clinton has little prospect of expanding the Democratic base beyond whoever Trump/insert Republican can scare into voting Democratic.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
It also tells me that what gains the party will make below the Presidency likely will come because of a favorable Senate map and turnout in a Presidential election year. Those gains will then be washed away in the inevitable midterm disaster for Democrats in 2018. You say you are being a realist by backing Hillary. I say I am being a realist by recognizing the looming disaster for Democrats post 2016 if the party continues on its current course.
There also is the small problem that national primary polling from before the primaries start simply isn't very predictive of where those polls will end up once the primaries actually start. You can already see the polls starting to tighten on the aggregators:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
I'm not saying that means Sanders will win, he might not even win a state, but let's actually wait until the votes are cast, shall we?
The strategy of marginalizing both Sanders and his supporters has played a large part in the overall strategy of the Clinton campaign. Fair enough, it is somewhat understandable why the Clinton campaign is doing this from a selfish perspective, but that doesn't mean I am not going to call it out for what it is.
From where I sit, the strategy of Clinton campaign is suicidal for Democrats over the long term because it seems to drive away just as many people as it attracts by fomenting distrust and division. It's almost like the Democrats forgot how Obama won.
And then there is this:
>It would be nice to get more white males involved in the process, but, let's face it... white >males are a HUGE part of the problem in this country, both as far as obstructing the kind of >changes that most Americans can get behind, or, for white progressives, by simply not being >very good, reliable allies along the way. They aren't where most of the future growth of this >nation and this party is coming from.
And yet Sanders wins among millennials, the most diverse generation in American history:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/move-over-berniebros-a-wave-of-young-women-is-boosting-bernie-sanders-20160112
http://mic.com/articles/132370/bernie-sanders-is-crushing-it-among-young-voters-a-new-poll-shows#.cpCAggY2n
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/109242/20160117/2016-democratic-presidential-polls-bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-by-19-points-among-women-millennials-heading-into-fourth-debate.htm
Hillary Clinton does currently have more support among Black and Hispanic Americans than Sanders, but characterizing Sanders support as just coming from young white guys is simply wrong.
That being said, Democrats do still need to appeal to white voters. I guess I'll be the one to point out that inconvenient truth. The geography of this country ensures that Democrats will have trouble winning House elections at both the national and state level for the rest of my lifetime without doing better among white voters. Democrats will have trouble keeping the Presidency too if the Republicans manage to convince people that whoever they are running is a moderate (hi Marco Rubio).
>The democgraphic shift in America and the emergence of minorities as real political >powers at the national level excites me. The idea of having more women in the workplace, >making equal pay, with real help with childcare and more involvement in boardrooms and in the >political arena excites me. Equal rights for all Americans excites me. And these things matter a l>ot more to me than whether one candidate would like to raise the top tax to 65% but lacks the >ability to do so, vs. another candidate wanting to raise the top tax to 50% while lacking the >ability to do so.
These things excite me too. I'll be even more excited when we have a political system that can actually make ideals like "equal rights for all Americans" a reality.
posted by eagles123 at 12:24 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, Clinton sure got hammered on the Wall Street money in that debate. I expected a better answer this time around - last time it was "9/11!", this time it's "Obama!". I didn't even know about the $600k in speaking fees from Goldman in a single year - that's the biggest takeaway of the debate for me. I wish she'd just address it honestly instead of dodging the question - if she believes that's the only way to get ahead in American politics, she should defend it as pragmatism.
In any event, the left is in real trouble if we leave ourselves open to attack on being owned by the banks and Trump gets the nomination. I clicked over to Trump's twitter feed to find that he is currently attacking the shit out of Ted Cruz for taking Wall Street money. Trump is obviously going to be a much bigger ally for the 1% than Clinton would, and I'm sure he's taking plenty of dirty money through some sort of PAC, but it's terrifying to think of the Democrats being open to an attack from the right about being beholden to Wall Street in this political climate. Since he's self-funded so far and doesn't have much political history, it's a pretty natural line of attack for him right now, and she will need a much better answer than "Obama" and "9/11" in the general election.
posted by dialetheia at 12:34 PM on January 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
In any event, the left is in real trouble if we leave ourselves open to attack on being owned by the banks and Trump gets the nomination. I clicked over to Trump's twitter feed to find that he is currently attacking the shit out of Ted Cruz for taking Wall Street money. Trump is obviously going to be a much bigger ally for the 1% than Clinton would, and I'm sure he's taking plenty of dirty money through some sort of PAC, but it's terrifying to think of the Democrats being open to an attack from the right about being beholden to Wall Street in this political climate. Since he's self-funded so far and doesn't have much political history, it's a pretty natural line of attack for him right now, and she will need a much better answer than "Obama" and "9/11" in the general election.
posted by dialetheia at 12:34 PM on January 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I had a huge reply that just blew up on me because I accidentally refreshed.
> Comparing people stuck in a media and societal bubble of divinely sanctioned lies, jingoism, xenophobia, sexism, and overt racism to those who aren't is perhaps not the best way to frame this argument.
I'm pretty sure you know that I'm not making that comparison. I don't know if you were trying to come across as dismissive, or otherwise discredit what I'm trying to say, but that's how it read - and reframing what I'm saying is a really traditional way of silencing dissent within political groups, one I'm all too used to from my own past.
The "societal bubble" of say, the Tea Party, is a base of voters who are energized and engaged who wouldn't have been otherwise that adds a large count to the base of votes that will always vote Republican, that never changes.
In a similar vein, I think when you tend to have candidates that engage people outside of the core Democratic voters on the Democratic side, you also add a large count there. It isn't enough to have an opposition candidate that a party finds distasteful - Look back at 2004. It was a relatively close election, all things considered, and I think it's largely what you'd expect when there's an incumbent, and neither candidate excites anyone outside of their core base very much.
Apathy is what kills candidates. We've seen it a bit on the large scale, but I have plenty of data to see this happening over and over again on a regional level.
I realize that what I'm about to say is more region specific than nationwide, but I still think it's relevant - I did a large study on KY elections and politics when I lived there, and there are some interesting patterns to be seen. Bear with me even if you have no interest in KY politics, or if you are wondering how this is relevant. If you are looking at raw numbers, the city, county, and state victors usually came down to how a region tended to vote for one party or another, unless there was a significant difference in advertising, publicity, and endorsements, or if there was an outright scandal.
There are many counties where the amount of registered Democrats outnumbered the amount of registered Republicans, yet the Republican candidates were absolutely destroying the Democratic candidates. The large margins tended to favor an extremist as opposed to a centrist - When there were more extreme candidates, on either side, the more extreme candidate tended to win on a large margin, unless there was a greater than 3:1 ratio of registered voters in favor of the winning party. This was rather consistent across party lines - When a centrist Democrat ran against an extremist Republican, the Republican tended to win unless they were just drowning in a Democratic region, and vice versa.
KY was interesting to watch, because I got to see the sudden rise of Rand Paul to congress, as well as the huge upset of Matt Bevin being elected as governor- A dramatic shift in state governance:
- In 2007, the vote was ~600,000 Democratic to ~400,000 Republican.
- In 2011, it was 470,000 to 300,000 to 75,000 - remaining Democratic - The 75,000 was an independent who was a Tea Partier in all but name.
- In 2015, it was ~510,000 Republican to ~425,000 Democratic
So the observations I can make from this: A ton more Republicans showed up in 2015 than had before, and a ton of Democrats stayed home after 2007. It's worth noting that the 2011 election was an incumbent governor that the people liked vs. a bunch of really unexciting ho-hum candidates, so the lack of democratic turn out isn't super surprising. What happened in 2015 was that an honest-to-god Tea Partier Republican ran vs. an establishment centrist Democrat (who wasn't remotely inspiring...) The Republican candidate promising to undo much of what the prior Governor had put in place - and being a classic example of someone who claimed to be working for the people as he's already started down the road of destroying as much government as possible that would actually impact the non-wealthy. And I think a large part of this is because more people were showing up to vote for their regional tea party goon as well - people who normally wouldn't have been compelled to vote in a purely gubernatorial election. Since it was a regional and a gubernatorial election, that got more voters out - in raw numbers - who would vote for Bevin, who may not have shown up otherwise. The smaller counties and cities are well known for having a higher ratio of voters actually show up - I think it's because they feel like they have more direct impact with their vote.
Some of this is a bit more subjective, as there isn't exactly hard data on a candidates "ho-hum" rating, but the raw number of registered voters and the actual results are open and hard objective data that's worth some scrutiny.
Now I know I'm just talking KY, because that's the data I have studied, and what I'm most familiar with. However, I think that the findings are relevant across the nation, mostly because of the sudden rise of the Tea Party and the dramatic shift rightward we've seen in the nation. The extremists have come out in force over the past few years, taking some House and Congressional seats - It's become a large enough faction of the Senate to cause some rifts in the majority party, and push them even further to the right.
I feel that the reason these shifts are happening is because a group of voters who wasn't being engaged prior now feels that there is someone they are compelled to vote for. Now, we all know that there are larger interests and finance carefully manipulating that, but when it comes down to it, more people are voting who wouldn't have voted otherwise. I really don't think that the core group of voters who are always going to vote for their party is what got the extremists in power... Those core voters are very consistent. The key difference in these upsets is that they were able to get people who traditionally wouldn't vote out to the polls for both the primary and the general.
I say all of this to make a few points:
The Democratic party is actually in a pretty good place, because both Hillary and Bernie have engaged additional voters beyond that core, and have energized the party as a whole in ways they haven't been for a while. I think both camps see the other as less energized than they really are, and there's certainly some divisiveness - ultimately, the key is going to be making sure that when the primary is over, the victor needs to capture as many of the same energized voters who voted for the other candidate as possible.
While it's tempting to dismiss the extremists on the Republican side as not having a chance, I think an energy has been awakened that's going to make them more likely than they would have been in the past... It's easy to mock the Tea Partiers, but they are actually quite good at organizing to actually get the vote out when there are enough numbers behind them. While it may seem insignificant to look at some of the shift in view of the whole, it's worth keeping in mind that an energized and active group actually has a very significant influence over the primary, and that we've had a crop of insanity in terms of the candidates and debates there like we've never seen. The "fringes" - the groups outside of the reliable core - are really influential. Not only is a group of voters who would show up for the general who wouldn't otherwise, but they can absolutely shape the results of the primary within their own party in a very dramatic fashion.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:03 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Comparing people stuck in a media and societal bubble of divinely sanctioned lies, jingoism, xenophobia, sexism, and overt racism to those who aren't is perhaps not the best way to frame this argument.
I'm pretty sure you know that I'm not making that comparison. I don't know if you were trying to come across as dismissive, or otherwise discredit what I'm trying to say, but that's how it read - and reframing what I'm saying is a really traditional way of silencing dissent within political groups, one I'm all too used to from my own past.
The "societal bubble" of say, the Tea Party, is a base of voters who are energized and engaged who wouldn't have been otherwise that adds a large count to the base of votes that will always vote Republican, that never changes.
In a similar vein, I think when you tend to have candidates that engage people outside of the core Democratic voters on the Democratic side, you also add a large count there. It isn't enough to have an opposition candidate that a party finds distasteful - Look back at 2004. It was a relatively close election, all things considered, and I think it's largely what you'd expect when there's an incumbent, and neither candidate excites anyone outside of their core base very much.
Apathy is what kills candidates. We've seen it a bit on the large scale, but I have plenty of data to see this happening over and over again on a regional level.
I realize that what I'm about to say is more region specific than nationwide, but I still think it's relevant - I did a large study on KY elections and politics when I lived there, and there are some interesting patterns to be seen. Bear with me even if you have no interest in KY politics, or if you are wondering how this is relevant. If you are looking at raw numbers, the city, county, and state victors usually came down to how a region tended to vote for one party or another, unless there was a significant difference in advertising, publicity, and endorsements, or if there was an outright scandal.
There are many counties where the amount of registered Democrats outnumbered the amount of registered Republicans, yet the Republican candidates were absolutely destroying the Democratic candidates. The large margins tended to favor an extremist as opposed to a centrist - When there were more extreme candidates, on either side, the more extreme candidate tended to win on a large margin, unless there was a greater than 3:1 ratio of registered voters in favor of the winning party. This was rather consistent across party lines - When a centrist Democrat ran against an extremist Republican, the Republican tended to win unless they were just drowning in a Democratic region, and vice versa.
KY was interesting to watch, because I got to see the sudden rise of Rand Paul to congress, as well as the huge upset of Matt Bevin being elected as governor- A dramatic shift in state governance:
- In 2007, the vote was ~600,000 Democratic to ~400,000 Republican.
- In 2011, it was 470,000 to 300,000 to 75,000 - remaining Democratic - The 75,000 was an independent who was a Tea Partier in all but name.
- In 2015, it was ~510,000 Republican to ~425,000 Democratic
So the observations I can make from this: A ton more Republicans showed up in 2015 than had before, and a ton of Democrats stayed home after 2007. It's worth noting that the 2011 election was an incumbent governor that the people liked vs. a bunch of really unexciting ho-hum candidates, so the lack of democratic turn out isn't super surprising. What happened in 2015 was that an honest-to-god Tea Partier Republican ran vs. an establishment centrist Democrat (who wasn't remotely inspiring...) The Republican candidate promising to undo much of what the prior Governor had put in place - and being a classic example of someone who claimed to be working for the people as he's already started down the road of destroying as much government as possible that would actually impact the non-wealthy. And I think a large part of this is because more people were showing up to vote for their regional tea party goon as well - people who normally wouldn't have been compelled to vote in a purely gubernatorial election. Since it was a regional and a gubernatorial election, that got more voters out - in raw numbers - who would vote for Bevin, who may not have shown up otherwise. The smaller counties and cities are well known for having a higher ratio of voters actually show up - I think it's because they feel like they have more direct impact with their vote.
Some of this is a bit more subjective, as there isn't exactly hard data on a candidates "ho-hum" rating, but the raw number of registered voters and the actual results are open and hard objective data that's worth some scrutiny.
Now I know I'm just talking KY, because that's the data I have studied, and what I'm most familiar with. However, I think that the findings are relevant across the nation, mostly because of the sudden rise of the Tea Party and the dramatic shift rightward we've seen in the nation. The extremists have come out in force over the past few years, taking some House and Congressional seats - It's become a large enough faction of the Senate to cause some rifts in the majority party, and push them even further to the right.
I feel that the reason these shifts are happening is because a group of voters who wasn't being engaged prior now feels that there is someone they are compelled to vote for. Now, we all know that there are larger interests and finance carefully manipulating that, but when it comes down to it, more people are voting who wouldn't have voted otherwise. I really don't think that the core group of voters who are always going to vote for their party is what got the extremists in power... Those core voters are very consistent. The key difference in these upsets is that they were able to get people who traditionally wouldn't vote out to the polls for both the primary and the general.
I say all of this to make a few points:
The Democratic party is actually in a pretty good place, because both Hillary and Bernie have engaged additional voters beyond that core, and have energized the party as a whole in ways they haven't been for a while. I think both camps see the other as less energized than they really are, and there's certainly some divisiveness - ultimately, the key is going to be making sure that when the primary is over, the victor needs to capture as many of the same energized voters who voted for the other candidate as possible.
While it's tempting to dismiss the extremists on the Republican side as not having a chance, I think an energy has been awakened that's going to make them more likely than they would have been in the past... It's easy to mock the Tea Partiers, but they are actually quite good at organizing to actually get the vote out when there are enough numbers behind them. While it may seem insignificant to look at some of the shift in view of the whole, it's worth keeping in mind that an energized and active group actually has a very significant influence over the primary, and that we've had a crop of insanity in terms of the candidates and debates there like we've never seen. The "fringes" - the groups outside of the reliable core - are really influential. Not only is a group of voters who would show up for the general who wouldn't otherwise, but they can absolutely shape the results of the primary within their own party in a very dramatic fashion.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:03 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure any national lessons can be drawn from Kentucky. Jack Conway ran possibly the least effective campaign in American history, and that's not an exaggeration. His LONE points were (a) I Too, Hate Obama and (2) Matt Bevin won't release his taxes. That's it, seriously. I challenge anyone to find a Jack Conway ad that had any other message than those two things. He refused to say a single word in support of Kentucky's national model healthcare exchange, and refused to defend any of Brashear or Obama's achievements in any other area.
If anything, the lesson there is the candidate that actually campaigns beats the one that sits home and does nothing, or worse, runs against his own party. See also: Martha Coakley.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:03 PM on January 18, 2016
If anything, the lesson there is the candidate that actually campaigns beats the one that sits home and does nothing, or worse, runs against his own party. See also: Martha Coakley.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:03 PM on January 18, 2016
Why Martin Luther King Didn't Run for President: King considered launching a presidential campaign to oppose military interventionism and promote democratic socialism
posted by homunculus at 5:11 PM on January 18, 2016
posted by homunculus at 5:11 PM on January 18, 2016
This is the kind of thing I mean about Clinton being vulnerable to general election attacks from Trump about accepting so much money from Wall Street. From Trump's ridiculous appearance at Liberty University today:
Jerry Falwell Jr., the university’s current president, said he was not endorsing the businessman, but he came just shy of doing so, describing Trump in his introductory remarks Monday as the only presidential candidate who “cannot be bought.”
When I think about Clinton's response to the speaking fees moment in the debate, this really worries me. Of course, we all know that Trump is much more likely to enact policies that favor the 1% than Clinton is, and I'm sure he has no intention of fixing the Citizens United mess, but it is scary to think about the Democratic party ceding that anti-corporate territory to the Republicans and being portrayed as the party of big banks and corporate money as well as big government. I'm sure the RNC will take corporate money even if Trump gets the nomination, but it's still much easier for him to make those kinds of claims since he doesn't have much political background at all and hasn't really had to take money from anyone so far.
Worse, it puts Clinton in the position of having to earnestly defend her donation/speaking fee history as simple "pragmatic politics," the natural result of a long successful career in Washington - which might be true but which no voter wants to hear, especially in an anti-establishment year with rising concerns about money in politics.
posted by dialetheia at 7:33 PM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jerry Falwell Jr., the university’s current president, said he was not endorsing the businessman, but he came just shy of doing so, describing Trump in his introductory remarks Monday as the only presidential candidate who “cannot be bought.”
When I think about Clinton's response to the speaking fees moment in the debate, this really worries me. Of course, we all know that Trump is much more likely to enact policies that favor the 1% than Clinton is, and I'm sure he has no intention of fixing the Citizens United mess, but it is scary to think about the Democratic party ceding that anti-corporate territory to the Republicans and being portrayed as the party of big banks and corporate money as well as big government. I'm sure the RNC will take corporate money even if Trump gets the nomination, but it's still much easier for him to make those kinds of claims since he doesn't have much political background at all and hasn't really had to take money from anyone so far.
Worse, it puts Clinton in the position of having to earnestly defend her donation/speaking fee history as simple "pragmatic politics," the natural result of a long successful career in Washington - which might be true but which no voter wants to hear, especially in an anti-establishment year with rising concerns about money in politics.
posted by dialetheia at 7:33 PM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Wall Street attack route is largely a non-issue with Hillary's fundraising, compared to her last run eight years ago.
Hillary should just get a big pie chart she brings along with her, and say,
"In 2008, when I was a Senator from NY, I took X percent of my money from individual donations, and about x percent of my money from the financial industry.
That was nearly a decade ago. Since that time, I. like most Americans, have become more sensitive to the appearance of big financial institutions buying influence from those who help regulate them. That is why the same chart today looks like this (really small sliver). Only x percent... and almost all of that comes from not CEOs and executives, but individual donors, who support my politics, but who happen to make a living in the banking industry. This relatively small part of my funding is not enough to change the responsible, accountable policies that the great majority of my supporters demand from Wall Street.
We need banks. But we need regulations on all banks, to make sure they don't hurt our economy or jeopardize our life savings, and so that they are never "too big to fail" ever again."
posted by markkraft at 8:45 PM on January 18, 2016
Hillary should just get a big pie chart she brings along with her, and say,
"In 2008, when I was a Senator from NY, I took X percent of my money from individual donations, and about x percent of my money from the financial industry.
That was nearly a decade ago. Since that time, I. like most Americans, have become more sensitive to the appearance of big financial institutions buying influence from those who help regulate them. That is why the same chart today looks like this (really small sliver). Only x percent... and almost all of that comes from not CEOs and executives, but individual donors, who support my politics, but who happen to make a living in the banking industry. This relatively small part of my funding is not enough to change the responsible, accountable policies that the great majority of my supporters demand from Wall Street.
We need banks. But we need regulations on all banks, to make sure they don't hurt our economy or jeopardize our life savings, and so that they are never "too big to fail" ever again."
posted by markkraft at 8:45 PM on January 18, 2016
Even if talking about donations is that straightforward (and for example super PAC money doesn't present a different picture) answering a challenge about how she makes money in her private endeavors with notes or charts about campaign fundraising percentages is still going to sound like dodging the question.
posted by XMLicious at 9:17 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by XMLicious at 9:17 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
There really isn't anything Hillary can say to dispel the notion that she has compromising ties to the financial services industry. One of the legacies of the first Clinton administration and the DLC was to deepen ties between the Democratic party and Wall Street. A relative decline in Wall Street donations from 2008, which represented a historical high for Democrats that was about recognition of the abject failure of the Bush administration as much as anything else, does not change that. The current ties between the Clintons and Wall Street are well documented.
That being said, Trump's buffoonishness and transparent opportunism should be enough to sink him in the general should he be the Republican nominee. The real danger Trump presents is that he will make it easy for whoever comes after him on the Republican side to appear reasonable.
Still, I agree that it will be harmful to the Democrats in the long run to cede the moral high ground on political corruption, as well as bad for the country. The 2008 recession ruined a lot of lives and devastated a lot of communities. There has never been adequate closure regarding that in a moral sense. The need for such closure animates Americans across the political and cultural spectrum.
posted by eagles123 at 9:31 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
That being said, Trump's buffoonishness and transparent opportunism should be enough to sink him in the general should he be the Republican nominee. The real danger Trump presents is that he will make it easy for whoever comes after him on the Republican side to appear reasonable.
Still, I agree that it will be harmful to the Democrats in the long run to cede the moral high ground on political corruption, as well as bad for the country. The 2008 recession ruined a lot of lives and devastated a lot of communities. There has never been adequate closure regarding that in a moral sense. The need for such closure animates Americans across the political and cultural spectrum.
posted by eagles123 at 9:31 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump can't claim not to take Wall Street money very convincingly. Open Secrets says that Finance is the 5th top industry for his donors, whereas with Clinton and Sanders, it's 17th, most of this from individual donors who are hard to restrict.
Also, while most Democrats would welcome campaign finance reform, most also don't like the idea of unilaterally disarming themselves when facing off against the GOP.
Everyone has super PACs supporting them, regardless of what they might say on the matter.
posted by markkraft at 2:26 PM on January 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, while most Democrats would welcome campaign finance reform, most also don't like the idea of unilaterally disarming themselves when facing off against the GOP.
Everyone has super PACs supporting them, regardless of what they might say on the matter.
posted by markkraft at 2:26 PM on January 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Everyone has super PACs supporting them, regardless of what they might say on the matter.
Blurring the lines between super PACs and labor unions in defense of PACs is not necessarily the most forward-thinking progressive line of argument I've ever seen on the subject, but it's creative, I'll give the Clinton campaign that. The only examples in that article that aren't about unions are about Sanders supporters who shut down or abandoned the PACs they started as soon as the campaign asked them to, so I think your description is quite misleading. While you may have a narrow procedural point about the legal definition of a PAC including Union advocacy, smearing unions as being just like PACs is a really ugly road for a progressive to go down.
posted by dialetheia at 2:59 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Blurring the lines between super PACs and labor unions in defense of PACs is not necessarily the most forward-thinking progressive line of argument I've ever seen on the subject, but it's creative, I'll give the Clinton campaign that. The only examples in that article that aren't about unions are about Sanders supporters who shut down or abandoned the PACs they started as soon as the campaign asked them to, so I think your description is quite misleading. While you may have a narrow procedural point about the legal definition of a PAC including Union advocacy, smearing unions as being just like PACs is a really ugly road for a progressive to go down.
posted by dialetheia at 2:59 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
And it looks like National Nurses United agrees: Nurses' Union Head Claims 'Massive Misstep' by Clinton
RoseAnn DeMoro, head of the 185,000 member Oakland-based National Nurses United — the nation’s largest female-dominated union — says Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has made a “massive misstep” by characterizing the union's support of her Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders as “dark money.”
“I think Hillary is on a slippery slope, calling unions 'SuperPACs' and 'dark money,'" DeMoro told POLITICO Monday. “She relies on labor as a partial funding base. ... What it says is that they’re desperate.”
posted by dialetheia at 3:08 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
RoseAnn DeMoro, head of the 185,000 member Oakland-based National Nurses United — the nation’s largest female-dominated union — says Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has made a “massive misstep” by characterizing the union's support of her Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders as “dark money.”
“I think Hillary is on a slippery slope, calling unions 'SuperPACs' and 'dark money,'" DeMoro told POLITICO Monday. “She relies on labor as a partial funding base. ... What it says is that they’re desperate.”
posted by dialetheia at 3:08 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I truly fear that we end up with a Trump-vs-Sanders race and end up with President Trump.
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on January 19, 2016
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on January 19, 2016
Maybe not.
According to a new [Dec. 22nd] poll by Quinnipiac University on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) destroys Republican candidate Donald Trump in a general election by 13 percentage points.In fact,
Bernie Sanders outperforms Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general-election matchup against Donald Trump, according to the results from the new [Jan. 13] NBC New/Wall Street Journal poll.posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:59 PM on January 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
General election polling at this point is mostly useless and you have to poll swing states rather than the electorate as a whole.
posted by Justinian at 5:09 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:09 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
538 is calling NH and IA for Clinton at the moment.
I was discussing the primaries with some friends last night who were all Bernie supporters (but Democrats more than anything), and we all agreed that Sanders reminds us of Larry David.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:42 PM on January 19, 2016
I was discussing the primaries with some friends last night who were all Bernie supporters (but Democrats more than anything), and we all agreed that Sanders reminds us of Larry David.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:42 PM on January 19, 2016
The last poll put NH at +30 for Sanders. Sure that could be an outlier but still. 538 is really going out on a limb with that one.
posted by Justinian at 12:23 AM on January 20, 2016
posted by Justinian at 12:23 AM on January 20, 2016
Eh - primary polling is terrible. They've said so themselves.
posted by koeselitz at 1:05 AM on January 20, 2016
posted by koeselitz at 1:05 AM on January 20, 2016
Erik Loomis: So What Would Happen if Bernie Sanders Won? - "But I think my bigger concern about a Sanders presidency is that his base would almost certainly abandon him within a year."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:32 AM on January 22, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:32 AM on January 22, 2016
That blog post is kind of hilarious because the implication seems to be that Clinton's base would be completely unsurprised if she didn't accomplish any of the things she's promising.
posted by XMLicious at 1:07 PM on January 22, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 1:07 PM on January 22, 2016
how are presidential candidates like NFL quarterbacks?
It's time for Democratic primary voters to focus on what they're hiring a president to do - "Success, then, will come from seizing those opportunities when they arise, and making the most of them. It will come from understanding and manipulating the levers of the bureaucracy, from being ruthless about taking incremental wins wherever they can be found, from taking the long view and not overreacting to the hysterical, endless fluctuations in elite DC opinion.
These are dark arts. It's difficult to predict who might master them."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:49 AM on January 25, 2016
It's time for Democratic primary voters to focus on what they're hiring a president to do - "Success, then, will come from seizing those opportunities when they arise, and making the most of them. It will come from understanding and manipulating the levers of the bureaucracy, from being ruthless about taking incremental wins wherever they can be found, from taking the long view and not overreacting to the hysterical, endless fluctuations in elite DC opinion.
These are dark arts. It's difficult to predict who might master them."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:49 AM on January 25, 2016
Bernie Sanders's political revolution, explained
Bernie’s Wall Street Plan Is Actually Not Enough - "Here are three ways he can make his plan a real threat to the finance industry."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:51 AM on January 29, 2016
Bernie’s Wall Street Plan Is Actually Not Enough - "Here are three ways he can make his plan a real threat to the finance industry."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:51 AM on January 29, 2016
« Older The Tennis Racket | Every Plant in its Place Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Guy Smiley at 4:44 PM on January 17, 2016 [7 favorites]