The 2016 US Election (Part II)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Locked
Omega18
Jedi Knight
Posts: 738
Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Omega18 »

Lord MJ wrote:We have a situation of money in politics that is an existential threat to our Democracy.

When confronted about it, Hillary not only doesn't indicate she is going to do anything about it
This is not accurate as stated.

Hillary Clinton has explicitly stated that one of her litmus tests for a Supreme Court justice is that they believe money does not equal speech which basically means they will support overturning Citizens United.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... reme-court

It should be noted that both Clinton era appointed judges voted against Citizens United (and supported a more recent challenge that would have at least greatly reduced Citizen United's scope) and there really isn't any reason to believe Hillary doesn't actually mean this which she has said in various forms on this issue on more than one occasion.

(The only possible complication is Merrick Garland's current nomination, although you would hope this was an area Obama defacto confirmed in private conversation before announcing his nomination, and Hillary has not actually committed to picking him if he has not been confirmed by the time she takes office. Regardless its reasonably plausible another of the 4 judges supporting Citizens United is going to vacate their office during what would be Hillary's term in office, which would represent a further opportunity to change the composition of the court so that ruling could at least be effectively overturned.)

In my view, there is relatively little that be done to really reform the current system without overturning Citizens United or otherwise at least shifting the composition of the court from what it previously looked it, so in other words in my view both Sanders and Clinton appear to basically have the same position on the key politically addressable issue in this area. (A Constitutional Amendment on this issue is realistically not going anywhere soon given the extent Republicans believe the current money rules tend to favor them and how difficult it is to actually pass and ratify one for the US Constitution.) It should also be noted that any legislation Sanders may support is actually going to need to be passed by Congress.

The position Hillary and others (including basically Obama) taking similar positions on how they handle campaign money has basically been given the current rules they are not going to effectively disarm themselves while their Republican opponents have the effective equivalent of nukes with all that Superpac money and the like. A practical worry is that while Sander's current philosophy has basically worked for the primaries, its not going to be sufficient in the general election with way more money floating around. A related potential concern is that Sanders might not do enough to assist down ballot candidates with fund raising with his views on this subject not being sufficiently pragmatic given the current campaign ground rules.

What it comes down to for me is since I believe Hillary will be the stronger candidate for a general election, I believe her nomination will actually be important towards addressing many of the current campaign finance issues, especially when you consider the consequences of a Republican President getting elected and putting his own long term stamp on the Supreme Court.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

On what do you base the idea that Clinton is the stronger general election candidate? Polls may not necessarily be reliable, but they certainly suggest otherwise.

I'm not sure what argument their is against Sanders' electability that's stronger than the assumption that because he's a socialist he can't win.
User avatar
Lord MJ
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 2002-07-07 07:40pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Lord MJ »

Omega18 wrote:

Hillary Clinton has explicitly stated that one of her litmus tests for a Supreme Court justice is that they believe money does not equal speech which basically means they will support overturning Citizens United.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... reme-court
I have little confidence to believe her on this. Since her talking about CU is largely due to responding to what Bernie said about it. Also in her previous talks about it she specifically referred to "dark money" which is a problem, it effectively leaves the non dark money in place (which benefits her) and is ultimately the root of the problem.

Lets keep in mind, with all the talk of CU. The problem of money in politics and Congress specifically being beholden to the donors predates CU by decades. The court cases that enabled the current situation we have right now dates back to the 70s/80s.

The position Hillary and others (including basically Obama) taking similar positions on how they handle campaign money has basically been given the current rules they are not going to effectively disarm themselves while their Republican opponents have the effective equivalent of nukes with all that Superpac money and the like.
Honestly I think Dems would do better in the long run if they disarmed themselves. Because by taking corporate money we get one of two kinds of Democrats

1. Democrats that are powerless to do anything positive because they are have no choice but to acede to their donors wishes.

2. Democrats that are corrupt shills that care not for the populace they are supposed to represent (other than ensuring their next reelection).
A practical worry is that while Sander's current philosophy has basically worked for the primaries, its not going to be sufficient in the general election with way more money floating around. A related potential concern is that Sanders might not do enough to assist down ballot candidates with fund raising with his views on this subject not being sufficiently pragmatic given the current campaign ground rules.
But if those down ballot candidates are beholden to big donor interests, what good are they? Taking up space that could be occupied by people that actually want to represent the people. At best they would serve as a barrier against some more egregious things the GOP wants to do. As far as the general election, it really depends on who the GOP decided to nominate.

What it comes down to for me is since I believe Hillary will be the stronger candidate for a general election, I believe her nomination will actually be important towards addressing many of the current campaign finance issues, especially when you consider the consequences of a Republican President getting elected and putting his own long term stamp on the Supreme Court.
Is your basis of Hillary being the stronger general election candidate based on the fact she will have more corporate money available to her than Sanders?
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

The fact that Sanders has fought her to a near-draw (which, super delegates aside, it is) despite her vast experience, name-recognition, insider connections, and presumptive nominee status while funding his campaign on small donations rather than super pac money shows that corporate donations aren't nearly as essential as some people think they are.

And while it might be hypocritical for Sanders to accept, I doubt the big Democratic donors would withhold their money if it was a choice between Bernie and Drumpf.
Omega18
Jedi Knight
Posts: 738
Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Omega18 »

The Romulan Republic wrote:On what do you base the idea that Clinton is the stronger general election candidate? Polls may not necessarily be reliable, but they certainly suggest otherwise.

I'm not sure what argument their is against Sanders' electability that's stronger than the assumption that because he's a socialist he can't win.
Actually one of my pieces of evidence is a certain kind of polling. Gallop has asked the question whether Americans would elect a social in polling over a number of years, and has consistently gotten results along the following where 50% of Americans rule out electing a socialist as President and only 47% say they would. (With other times the poll has been taken having even worse results.)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socia ... aling.aspx

Among other things, I do believe there are a certain number of Americans who often vote in Presidential elections, but pay shockingly little attention until close to the actual election, so in a certain number of cases they are currently still unaware that Sanders truly is a self described socialist rather than it just being the standard Republican label of practically any Democrat. Its also not a case where Hillary has really been attacking Bernie for being a socialist while this would obviously change in the general election.

There also is allot of historical data showing polls this far out for the general presidential election are not remotely predictive. While this Fivethirtyeight article does focus on a longer time frame than is the case right now, it does make the general point about how dramatically they can be wrong.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-y ... ion-polls/

As a related example with a closer time frame, this article from May 17th of 1988 shows how Michael Dukakis had a 10 percent lead over Bush in polling according to a Gallup poll at that time.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/17/us/po ... wanted=all

(Other polling had him having an even greater lead during the same time frame of up to 16%, with the general lead mostly sticking into part of June.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... on.2C_1988

The actual Presidential voting results had Dukakis losing to George H.W. Bush by 7.8% after public perception of him was decimated by Republican attack adds among other things for at least a 17.8% shift in a lesser time frame than we're talking about so far.

My view is that the Republicans have very intentionally mostly held their fire on Sanders who they believe would be the easier candidate to beat in the general election, but this would dramatically change if he was the nominee. Right now Sanders is basically benefiting from being a relatively unknown fresh face with a portion of the general public not aware of particularly anything associated with him that they would view as negative. While allot of Sanders political views and positions he has held in the past and current are not necessarily an issue in Democratic primaries with that selective slice of the electorate, that's not the case when you're talking about who will show up to vote in a general election. Now its fair to say the current polling results show Hillary is not the perfect Democratic Presidential candidate, but that's not required to win and doesn't mean Sanders would be stronger when you get down to it.

My basic belief if Sander's current polling numbers are fools gold and would generally dramatically drop if he actually was made the nominee and came under sustained Republican and conservative attack.

(One other issue is I believe even right now more Hillary supporters are willing to be pragmatic enough to knowledge they would support Sanders over Cruz or Trump in a general election when asked in polling, with me certainly being one of them if I were contacted. However, I believe a portion of Sanders supporters are often more reluctant to perhaps even admit in some cases to themselves what they would do in a general, but I do think there is strong reason to believe that assuming the Democratic convention is not a complete disaster, they are going to actually vote for Hillary in the general if it comes to that.)
Omega18
Jedi Knight
Posts: 738
Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Omega18 »

The Romulan Republic wrote:The fact that Sanders has fought her to a near-draw (which, super delegates aside, it is)
Simply not really true when you actually look at the delegate numbers with Hillary still having an over 200 pledged delegate lead, which is massive by 2008 standards if you look at that for a comparison, and the evidence being that Hillary is about to start winning again now that she's back to more demographically favorable states. In particular recent polling in New York is all showing Hillary with a significant lead with the average being 14%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls

(If you leave out one fluke poll result which appears to have just been wrong and given Hillary too much of a lead, there simply has not been much of a sign of Sanders catching up recently in the state polling data so far.)

You also have the reality that due to the proportional rules, its really hard to actually come back from leads like the one Hillary has even if on a percentage basis it might not seem as significant. (If you want to make the point that Sanders has made a good showing that's fair, but that's different than actually winning.)

A final key detail you appear to be unaware of is that Hillary's supporting superpac stopped spending money back on March 16th, with the exception of money it had already allocated to Arizona, with the plan on saving its money for the general since it was reasonably confident on the Democratic Primary results. (The evidence is even at the time it was only spending money in Arizona rather than also the other states.)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/h ... pac-220897

To my knowledge (with no reporting seeming to suggest otherwise and a superpac not able to show TV ads for example without information available to make it clear they are paying for them) the superpac has not shifted its stance since then so Hillary has not really been benefiting from superpacs at all for recent or upcoming primaries. However its obvious that if Sanders did do so unexpectedly well in some of the upcoming states that it really looks like he could win the primary, the superpac will realistically shift its stance and get involved more aggressively than ever.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

A 200-plus delegate lead out of about 4,000 total (not counting Supers). That's actually fairly close, relative to the number of delegates at stake.

As to the assumption the Clinton will start winning again... until the results come in it is just that- an assumption. I don't trust the polls. They've too often been wrong.

Now, it certainly wouldn't shock me if Clinton won New York. But while I could be wrong, I certainly suspect it'll be a bit closer than 14 points. And New York is certainly significantly close than it was at one time.

And yes, obviously the proportional splitting of delegates makes it hard to gain ground quickly. But as you yourself acknowledged, Bernie is doing and has done extraordinarily well under the circumstances. If anyone had told you at the start of the year that Bernie would have won, what, seventeen contests by now, would you have believed it?

Did not know that Clinton's super pac was sitting on the sidelines (which I take as a sign of overconfidence), but Clinton certainly benefitted from their aid up until less than a month ago. You know, when she was racking up big wins.

I do hope you're right about Sanders supporters coming over to Clinton if it comes down to that, though. As a Sanders supporter, few things piss me off more than the words "Bernie or Bust". Well, those who say they'll vote for Drumpf if Sanders doesn't get the nomination piss me off more, obviously.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Another lovely bit of election news, this time from Colorado:

http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_2 ... ie-sanders
Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected after the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week that it misreported the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations.

The party discovered the discrepancy a week after the caucus but did not correct the public record.

Hillary Clinton's campaign discussed the error with state party officials last week, but the Sanders campaign apparently didn't realize the issue until being informed Monday evening by The Denver Post.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks to supporters during a campaign rally Tuesday evening in the Arts and Sciences
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks to supporters during a campaign rally Tuesday evening in the Arts and Sciences Auditorium at the University of Wyoming campus on April 5, 2016, in Laramie, Wyo. Sanders won the Democratic presidential primary in Wisconsin Tuesday. (Blaine McCartney, The Wyoming Tribune Eagle via AP)
The mistake is a minor shift with major implications. The new projection now shows the Vermont senator winning 39 delegates in Colorado, compared to 27 for Clinton.

Even if Clinton wins all 12 superdelegates in the state, Sanders can finish no worse than a split decision. The new count contrasts with prior projections from The Post, Bloomberg Politics and The Associated Press that indicated Clinton would probably win the majority of the 78 delegates in Colorado because of her support from party leaders with superdelegate status.

If Sanders lands one Colorado superdelegate — two are still undecided and others are facing significant pressure — he could win the state's delegation.

1/5

Peter Wright holds an American flag above hundreds of people who were forced to organize in a parking lot during the caucus at East High school in Denver, Colorado on March 1, 2016. 18 precincts were represented at East High School and thousands of people turned out for the caucus. Organizers had anticipated about 20% of people from their precincts would turn out and many more actually came. (Photo by Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post)
Peter Wright holds an American flag above hundreds of people who were forced to organize in a parking lot during the caucus at East High school in Denver, Colorado on March 1, 2016. 18 precincts were represented at East High School and thousands of people turned out for the caucus. Organizers had ...
‹›
RELATED: Ted Cruz dominates Colorado GOP convention winning all 34 delegates

The revelation that the state party misreported the results to the public March 1 comes as Sanders seeks to convince Democrats that he can win the nomination.

And it arises a day after the Colorado Republican Party faced blistering criticism from Donald Trump and his supporters about how it awarded national delegates in what the candidate called a "rigged" system.

In this Feb. 29, 2016 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Norfolk, Va.
In this Feb. 29, 2016 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Norfolk, Va. (Gerald Herbert, Associated Press file)
The double-barrel controversies regarding Colorado's caucus system will only reinforce calls for the state to move to a primary vote that allows more transparency and participation among voters who felt left out of the complicated process.

RELATED: Trump escalates challenge, calls Colorado GOP vote "a crooked deal"

Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio said that all votes cast Super Tuesday counted — and dismissed suggestions about fraud amid calls for his resignation.

"It was basically a reporting error on caucus night," Palacio said in an interview Monday.

The problem, he said, occurred when a volunteer at Byers Middle School in Denver punched the wrong vote tallies from 10 precincts into the party's interactive voice response system for the presidential preference poll.

The state party's website reported March 1 that Sanders won 14,624 votes, or 54 percent, in Denver County and Clinton took 12,097 votes, or 45 percent.

But the corrected numbers for Denver County give Sanders 15,194 votes, or 56.5 percent, and Clinton with 11,527, or 43 percent, according to official party results.

The error low-balled Sanders' margin of victory in the county by nearly 4 percentage points — a boost that shifted how the delegates were projected for the 1st Congressional District.

The results reported on caucus night indicated that Sanders and Clinton would split the district's eight national delegates, 4-4. But the new numbers gave Sanders five delegates and Clinton three.

"It was an embarrassment on our part for sure," Palacio said.

Still, Palacio suggested the campaigns received the correct data just days after the caucus in an e-mail from party officials. "It was our assumption they were using that data," he said.

The Clinton campaign realized the discrepancy between the public data and the official results and discussed it with the party Friday, Palacio said.

But the first public indication of the mistake only became apparent at the 1st District convention straw poll Saturday, when Sanders took five delegates and Clinton three.

Sanders supporters initially thought the campaign picked up support in Colorado. But Palacio said Clinton didn't lose support — "we just misreported it."

"It was basically one (caucus) site," he added. "Whomever dialed the numbers in must have had a little weirdness happen. The official results were reported correctly, but when they dialed them in using the touch-tone, it looks like something got transposed."

Democratic Party officials did not acknowledge the mistake until Monday .

Palacio downplayed the discrepancy, saying the site with the results — coloradocaucus.org — "is only used for reporting to the press.

"It wasn't used in an official way," he added. "So we didn't go back and actually look at the website versus the math sheets."

Upon being told of the new delegate math Monday, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said "we are obviously pleased to essentially narrow the delegate lead by two delegates, one up and one down — it's a zero sum game."

As to whether Sanders can win a superdelegate and claim a majority of the state's delegation, Weaver said the campaign considers them separate tallies.

"Once we get to the convention, they'll have an opportunity to take a look at the two candidates and choose the candidate who is best able to defeat the Republicans in November," he said in an interview. "We are very gratified that we not only won the pledged delegates in Colorado, we apparently won them by a larger margin."

Still, Weaver expressed displeasure about how how the party reported the results. "It is certainly disturbing that the information gets sent to one campaign and not to another," he said.

Palacio said he didn't tell the Sanders camp about the divergent numbers "because it didn't necessarily affect (them). It was our mistake that ended up affecting the estimation of Hillary's campaign."

A Clinton campaign spokeswoman declined to comment.

Palacio said the party discovered no other errors and downplayed concerns about the tallies because the March 1 vote didn't apportion any actual delegates.

At each layer in the Democratic delegate process, the party takes a new straw poll — just as it will at the state convention Saturday in Loveland to award the final delegates. The precinct-level results merely inform the future votes and allow projections used by national news organizations to track delegate totals.

To match the results from caucus night, a campaign's supporters need to show up in the same proportions at the congressional district and state conventions.

Sanders won the state 60 percent to 40 percent in the popular vote and is expected to reap the benefits Saturday if his supporters turn out.

"It's not unusual for numbers to shift (loyalties) and that's why we have straw polls at each step of the way," Palacio said.

Palacio said the misreporting only reaffirms his push for a presidential vote run by the state. "I go back to my position on a presidential primary," he said. "I think caucuses are great for smaller races but Colorado has outgrown the caucus system in presidential years."

John Frank: 303-954-2409, jfrank@denverpost.com or @ByJohnFrank
Fuck the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. Not for the initial misreported results- mistakes happen, and for now, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was a mistake and not fraud.

But that they felt that the Clinton campaign needed to know about it, and the public and Bernie didn't? And that the Clinton campaign saw fit to keep this to themselves as well, apparently?

Fuck them.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

It sounds like the Clinton campaign caught the issue as they're describing the Sanders campaign as not realizing a damn thing about it. Forget the public. No wonder the Clinton campaign got to discuss it.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Gaidin wrote:It sounds like the Clinton campaign caught the issue as they're describing the Sanders campaign as not realizing a damn thing about it. Forget the public. No wonder the Clinton campaign got to discuss it.
So because Bernie's campaign didn't spot the problem, they don't have a right to know about it, even when it effects the results in a way that harms their campaign?

Yeah, I'm seeing still seeing the favouritism here.
User avatar
Raw Shark
Stunt Driver / Babysitter
Posts: 7894
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:35am
Location: One Mile Up

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Raw Shark »

East High School was my caucus! Brought a date. Good times.

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
User avatar
Lord MJ
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 2002-07-07 07:40pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Lord MJ »

There is an issue right now of Bernie not having released his tax returns. While there is no evidence that there is anything nefarious with his tax history. Indeed I doubt Bernie was even thinking about tax returns until the media bought it up recently. He has until October to file his taxes (if he takes extension.) But I don't want the issue of Bernie's tax returns to be hanging over the election and raising questions. So I hope he releases them soon.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

He should.

If he did something wrong, the public should know. And if he didn't, withholding them makes him look bad for no reason.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

The Romulan Republic wrote:
Gaidin wrote:It sounds like the Clinton campaign caught the issue as they're describing the Sanders campaign as not realizing a damn thing about it. Forget the public. No wonder the Clinton campaign got to discuss it.
So because Bernie's campaign didn't spot the problem, they don't have a right to know about it, even when it effects the results in a way that harms their campaign?

Yeah, I'm seeing still seeing the favouritism here.
More like they're busy, they'll let you know when you need to know like most systems like this. The press figured it out first and so it got dropped in his lap. But don't take my word for it, most people just work in a system like this for most of their lives and don't realize it until they have to do a project with multiple divisions. Nevermind fifty.

Clinton's watching this shit like a hawk. Playing the shadow game slightly better then Bernie it's been noted.
User avatar
Lord MJ
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 2002-07-07 07:40pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Lord MJ »

Another day another controversy.

A doctor that was a Bernie Supporter/Surrogate used the term "Corporate Democratic Whores" to address Democrats that have been selling out to the big corporations.

Lets just say the OUTRAGE has been epic. Even though the comment was applied to Democratic politicians en mass, predictably the reponse has been "Sexism!"
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Purple »

But lets be fair. These days "sexist" and "racist" have become the new "nazi" as a catch all term for "people I don't like".
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Napoleon the Clown »

Lord MJ wrote:Another day another controversy.

A doctor that was a Bernie Supporter/Surrogate used the term "Corporate Democratic Whores" to address Democrats that have been selling out to the big corporations.

Lets just say the OUTRAGE has been epic. Even though the comment was applied to Democratic politicians en mass, predictably the reponse has been "Sexism!"
And Bernie has already come at and said the language is unacceptable... Did Hill-dawg ever do the same when one of her supporters started the Birther movement, I wonder?
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
User avatar
Lord MJ
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 2002-07-07 07:40pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Lord MJ »

I find it sad that I've heard the term whore in usage in political speak for a long time. Even on this board in reference to Bernie Sanders. I've also heard various other sexual innuendo to refer to politicians taking legalized bribes including:

- Deep Throating the Corporations
- Sucking Koch Cock
- And my personal favorite, giving corporations "wet slippery handjobs."

I agree that it wasn't the right choice of words for someone affiliated with a political campaign to say.

But I had much contempt for any insinuation from the Clinton camp about "sexism." The "whore" comment does nothing to change that opinion. In fact it only strengthens by feeling on the subject.
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Terralthra »

Bernie should apologize for comparing honest sex workers trying to make a living to corrupt congresspersons.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Terralthra wrote:Bernie should apologize for comparing honest sex workers trying to make a living to corrupt congresspersons.
Well, Bernie didn't make the comment, in all fairness, a nebulously labeled "Sanders supporter" did.
User avatar
Lord MJ
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 2002-07-07 07:40pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Lord MJ »

The doctor was giving a speech to a rally. He was talking about Universal Health Care and how we need to stop electing "Corporate Democratic Whores".

He's a Bernie surrogate but I don't know how "officially" he is tied to Bernie's campaign.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Not that I'd just love to just avoid this spinning here and now between about a hundred different news sites and a hundred different forums(including this one apparently) but you guys are telling me that "corporate shill" wouldn't have just dodged this entire mess that "corporate whore" caused and yet gotten the meaning across but this supposedly well educated doctor was too incompetent to know what synonyms were and not pick a word that wasn't sexually charged?

Bravo.

Image
User avatar
Lord MJ
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 2002-07-07 07:40pm
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Lord MJ »

"Corporate shill" would've definitely made things a lot easier.

But given that Hillary's camp has a history in this election and previous elections of pulling this stuff... Her camp has cried wolf too often.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Lord MJ wrote:"Corporate shill" would've definitely made things a lot easier.

But given that Hillary's camp has a history in this election and previous elections of pulling this stuff... Her camp has cried wolf too often.
I don't care. You don't use the word 'whore' and then issue a notApology 90 minutes later unless you know what you're doing. That guy's a political asshat who shoved Bernie's own foot into his mouth and forced him to walk it back the next day. Make your conspiracy theories now.
User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7700
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by FaxModem1 »

Washington Post
The Washington Post

Search

Home Page
Politics
Opinions
Sports
Local
National
World
Business
Tech
Lifestyle
Entertainment
Crosswords
Video
Photography
Washington Post Live
Live Chats
Real Estate
Cars
Jobs
WP BrandConnect
Classifieds
Partners
washingtonpost.com
1996-2016 The Washington Post
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Submissions and Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google Plus
Share via Email
More Options

Politics
Some Democrats accuse Sanders supporters of harassing convention delegates
Resize Text Print Article Comments 3685 Book mark article Read later list
Saved to Reading List
New York holds its primaries on April 19. Stay caught up with the race.
How the GOP awards delegates in New York
New York's GOP follows a modified winner-take-all formula. If any candidate wins more than 50 percent statewide, he takes all available delegates. If he falls below 50 percent, the second-place finisher is entitled to at least one delegate. The same is true in each congressional district -- each of which gets three delegates, regardless of how many Republicans live there.
Republicans go hunting for votes in the most Democratic place in America
Share on Facebook

A history of fiery conventions
Play Video
New York Democratic polling averages
It may be a make-or-break contest on the Democratic side. A Clinton loss in New York would bolster Sanders’s claim that he can still catch up to her and become the nominee.
53% 40%
New York GOP polling averages
Donald Trump: 54%
Trump enjoys broad support in this state, which has 95 delegates at stake.
John Kasich: 22%
Kasich sees an opportunity if New York stays skeptical of Cruz.
Ted Cruz: 18%
Cruz's repeated attacks on Trump's "New York values" don't play well in the state.
The 5 big states that will likely decide both nominations
New York
Delegates at stake for the Democrats: 247 Delegates at stake for the Republicans: 95

Pennsylvania
Delegates at stake for the Democrats: 189 Delegates at stake for the Republicans: 71

Indiana
Not a key state for Democrats. Delegates at stake for the Republicans: 57

California
Delegates at stake for the Democrats: 475 Delegates at stake for the Republicans: 172

New Jersey
Not a key state for Republicans. Delegates at stake for the Democrats: 126

Everything you need to know about the delegate race ahead
Share on Facebook





What is a super PAC?
Play Video
The upcoming voting schedule
April 19
Both parties vote in New York.

April 26
Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island hold primaries.

May 3
Indiana holds it primary contests.

5-Minute Fix newsletter
Keeping up with politics is easy now.


E-mail address
Add
Campaign 2016

State of the 2016 race
Highlights from Bernie Sanders’s campaign, in pictures
View Photos The senator from Vermont has become Hillary Clinton’s chief rival in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination.
By Anne Gearan, John Wagner and Abby Phillip April 12
Sen. Bernie Sanders and his boosters are intensifying their courtship of convention delegates who could determine the winner of the Democratic presidential nomination, prompting some party leaders and supporters of front-runner Hillary Clinton to claim harassment.

The Sanders campaign says it has no connection to the efforts of outside supporters to lean on superdelegates, the party leaders and elected officials who can cast nomination votes for any candidate and who are seen as increasingly pivotal in the Democrats’ unexpectedly drawn-out nominating contest.

Among those efforts is a website created last week under the name Superdelegate Hit List, providing phone numbers and addresses for superdelegates and encouraging users to submit further contact information, presumably to help advocates pressure them. Site creator Spencer Thayer, a Chicago activist, described the goal this way in a Twitter message: “So who wants to help start . . . a new website aimed at harassing Democratic Superdelegates?”

Longtime Democratic National Committee member and superdelegate Bob Mulholland wrote a letter to Sanders last week excoriating the candidate for not calling out his supporters for their “bullying” of superdelegates.

Mulholland said he has not received any threats directly but has fielded complaints from other delegates who said they have received harassing emails, Facebook postings and phone calls — including one to a woman at 10:30 p.m. and another that a 12-year-old child picked up.

Sanders: 'We're going to win' in New York
Play Video0:42
Bernie Sanders said April 11 that with a large voter turnout, he’s confident he can beat Hillary Clinton in New York’s primary. (Reuters)
“Society has been trying to deal with High School bullies and the same Rule should apply to your campaign and your supporters,” wrote Mulholland, who supports Clinton. “Professionally, campaign staff and representatives should be the ones calling delegates.

“A 12 year old child answering the phone at home should not be hearing threats,” he added.


Republicans are in the midst of a fierce delegate fight, too. Front-runner Donald Trump is still trying to win enough nominating contests to take a majority of delegates and claim the nomination outright. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), meanwhile, is executing a state-by-state strategy to install delegates who would choose him on a second ballot if Trump fell short. (GOP rules allow many delegates to switch allegiances if no one wins the nomination in the first round of voting.)

According to some Republican leaders, the intensity of the delegate battle has even sparked death threats against those who have publicly criticized Trump.

On the Democratic side, the Sanders campaign has not publicly denounced Thayer or other supporters, but campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Sanders does not support the lobbying of superdelegates by outside groups or volunteers.

“We certainly don’t condone harassment of anybody,” Weaver said.

Clinton, too, was asked about the issue during a campaign stop this week in New York.

Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders among superdelegates 469 to 38, according to a tally by the Associated Press. (Yana Paskova/For The Washington Post)
“I have heard those reports and had some firsthand accounts of some of the unfortunate behavior that we’ve seen both online and in person,” she said, adding that she is proud that her own campaign has been run “on issues.”

“There seems to be a growing level of anxiety in that campaign, which I hope doesn’t spill over into the way that his supporters treat other people, who have every right to support whomever they choose,” she said. “And where things stand now, I am far ahead of him in the popular vote, considerably ahead in the pledged delegates.”

Sanders is trailing nationally but riding the momentum of a string of recent victories in state primaries and caucuses. Nowhere is his deficit more pronounced than among superdelegates, many of whom are longtime politicians with ties to the Clinton political franchise.


[Why New York is pivotal for Sanders and for Clinton]

The overall intensity of the courtship of these leaders has not matched that of 2008, when Clinton was running against Barack Obama, many superdelegates say.

Still, Sanders’s campaign has begun to argue that the system is stacked against the candidate and that superdelegates should consider backing Sanders to more accurately reflect the will of voters, who have delivered him victories in seven of the last eight nominating contests.

Outside supporters go further, saying the superdelegate system is designed to protect establishment candidates such as Clinton — and to prevent populist insurgencies. The most frequent targets of that ire are the DNC and Clinton, but Sanders supporters have increasingly advocated direct lobbying of superdelegates.

“It’s time we take our democracy back from the DNC. Together we can find the Superdelegates and hold them accountable to our votes,” reads the “hit list” site’s front page. As for whether his site encourages stalking, Thayer said in a tweet that his list is “no more cyberstalking than an AT&T phonebook or a public registry of elected officials.”

Nonetheless, since its creation last week, the site’s name has changed to Superdelegate List — and its logo from a donkey with arrows through its head to a donkey surrounded by phone cords.

Thayer said in an interview that he made the changes because the name and logo became counterproductive. He said his goal is accountability — and perhaps eventually to do away with a system he said is designed to perpetuate the political power of an elite few.


“Historically, the superdelegates have been able to disenfranchise voters without being held accountable,” he said. “The Internet has changed power relationships between party leaders and their constituents, and those in power have a tendency to interpret challenges to their authority as harassment.

“I’m not sympathetic to that point of view,” he said.

Thayer said the site is entirely separate from the Sanders campaign. Sanders “is irrefutably a better candidate than Hillary Clinton,” he said, but Thayer, an independent, said he did not vote in Illinois’ primary.

[Clinton and allies attack Sanders on gun control ahead of N.Y. primary]

Several superdelegates said in interviews that they have been contacted online or by phone by Sanders supporters, who often complain that the system is undemocratic or unfair. None of these delegates said they felt personally threatened, but some found the contacts aggravating.

“People are making a lot of threats and putting a lot of pressure on delegates to switch,” said Ken Martin, the Minnesota Democratic Party chairman and a Clinton superdelegate.

Scott Brennan, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party and a superdelegate supporting Clinton, said he has heard from Sanders supporters but not directly from the campaign. Brennan, who decided to back Clinton shortly before the Iowa caucuses, said he didn’t consider any of the emails or tweets to be out of bounds.

Sanders’s aides said their own effort rests on contacting all superdelegates, especially the roughly 200, out of a total of about 700, who have not publicly committed to either candidate.


A team based in Sanders’s Burlington, Vt., headquarters keeps tabs on those and other superdelegates, checking in regularly and making sure they are available to answer questions, aides said.

The wooing process can also include calls from leading Sanders surrogates, including other superdelegates already committed to the senator from Vermont. When someone is close to committing, either Sanders or his wife, Jane, is tapped to make a phone call and act as “the closer,” Weaver said.

Martin said he has seen no recent defections by Clinton superdelegates, including those who have not made their commitments known publicly. “The only thing we’re seeing is that people are going to continue to wait until their states have weighed in, or until the process is completed in June, to make their intentions known,” he said.

Martin said Clinton has commitments from about 600 superdelegates, a figure well above the roughly 470 listed in most counts kept by the media.

The Associated Press currently gives Clinton 1,280 pledged delegates — those won in nominating contests — and 469 superdelegates, for a total of 1,749. The AP says Sanders has 1,061, including 38 superdelegates.

Each campaign says its number is actually higher, reflecting commitments from supporters who have not been willing to go public yet.

Some superdelegates and other senior Democrats said the Clinton campaign has sought to reassure those who feel under siege — or who are just ready for the long and unexpectedly bitter primary fight to be over.

“We need to get ready for a Hillary versus Republicans election sooner rather than later,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a superdelegate firmly pledged to Clinton.

Beyer said he has not been personally lobbied to change his support either by the Sanders campaign or by others online, but his congressional office said several Sanders supporters have called to urge him to support the senator — and those calls are usually handled by interns.

Beyer added with a laugh: “I made the decision early on not to read my Facebook postings. That way you don’t ever get discouraged or down.”

Weaver said Sanders’s courting of superdelegates will intensify in coming weeks.

Aides said they will have a more credible case to make if Sanders accumulates more pledged delegates than Clinton does by the end of the nominating calendar in June, a long-shot prospect.

Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
They also said that among their targets are superdelegates in states that Sanders has won, particularly those he has won convincingly. Their argument: Their support should mirror that of their constituents.

The outcome Saturday in Wyoming is among the motivations for Sanders supporters. He won the state’s Democratic caucuses but split the 14 pledged delegates. The state also has four superdelegates, all supporting Clinton.

“He got more votes; she got more delegates,” said a frustrated Scott Weiler, 38, an ironworker’s apprentice who brought his family to Sanders’s rally in Albany, N.Y. “That’s bull----. If there were no superdelegates, I think Bernie would win.”

Weiler said he has signed petitions and emails asking Clinton-backing superdelegates, including Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont, to consider the support for Sanders in their states — and switch.

Phillip reported from New York. Dan Balz in Washington and David Weigel in Albany and Binghamton, N.Y., contributed to this report.


Anne Gearan is a national politics correspondent for The Washington Post.

John Wagner is a political reporter covering the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Abby Phillip is a national political reporter for the Washington Post. She can be reached at abby.phillip@washpost.com. On Twitter: @abbydphilli
E-mail address
Add
washingtonpost.com
© 1996-2016 The Washington Post
Those poor superdelegates.
Image
Locked