The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Flagg]

I'm clearly not saying Bernie's been a life-long Democrat, because he obviously hasn't, but the fact is, he's chosen to throw his lot in with the Democratic Party now, for better or worse, and as long as he stands by that, I do not see why the party should not welcome him with open arms. Bernie is a potential asset that the Democratic establishment seems determined to waste.

On the VP thing, I don't think its likely that it would be offered, and doubt it would be accepted if it was. And like I said, he can probably do more as a Senator to advance his cause, anyway.

As to Bernie supporters staying home- look, you will not find a stronger critic of Bernie or Bust among Sanders supporters than me. And I hope that most Sanders supporters will back Clinton, although I have my doubts.

Doing otherwise, however, doesn't necessarily mean that they're cult-like Bernie worshipers so much as Clinton haters.

But even if its just a small percentage of them... this election could be closer than you think, and I don't think its wise to alienate a large portion of the Democratic Primary electorate in the general election. If even ten percent of Bernie supporters stay home, that's millions of voters lost.

If Clinton wins, it will not be with an overwhelming margin- it'll be by maybe a few hundred pledged delegates out of several thousand, a margin that might well have disappeared if their had been less voter suppression, more generous registration deadlines, and more independents allowed to vote in primaries/caucuses. In that position, it would behoove her to be a gracious winner and reach out to the other side, not act like the almost fifty percent who didn't vote for her are an irrelevant fringe.

Dude, disagreements aside, can you please educate yourself on the difference between "there, their, and they're" and like, use them correctly? I'm not trying to be an asshole (not that I've ever had to), but it's extremely grating.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sorry. I do know the difference, but the habit is honestly so ingrained that unless I'm consciously thinking about it, I sometimes do it without even being aware of it. I'll try to do it less in the future.

[Flagg]

Sorry. I do know the difference, but the habit is honestly so ingrained that unless I'm consciously thinking about it, I sometimes do it without even being aware of it. I'll try to do it less in the future.

I'm sure I'd fuck it up plenty if spell/grammar check didn't hassle me about it until it became second nature.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well fuck.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/ ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the likely general election presidential nominees, are running neck-and-neck in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, results driven by wide gender and racial gaps among voters, a new general election poll shows.

Clinton edges Trump in Florida and Pennsylvania, while Trump leads in Ohio, according to the Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday.
In both Florida and Pennsylvania the poll shows Clinton narrowly over Trump, 43% to 42%. In Ohio, Trump leads Clinton 43% to 39%.
"At this juncture, Trump is doing better in Pennsylvania than the GOP nominees in 2008 and 2012. And the two candidates are about where their party predecessors were at this point in Ohio and Florida," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll, in a memo accompanying the poll results.
Fault lines: GOP civil war deepens
The poll also tested general election matchups between Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders, who currently trails Clinton, for their party's nomination. Sanders fares slightly better than Clinton in all three states, even topping Trump in Ohio, 43%-41%.
CNN Politics app
For Clinton and Trump, wide gaps in support among women and men and minorities drive the close contests.
In all three swing states, Clinton leads Trump among women by nine or more points, while Trump wins men by double-digits. And while white voters consistently favor Trump, non-white voters back Clinton by huge margins.
Nightcap: Paul Ryan gives Donald Trump an out on convention | Sign up
"The gender gap is massive and currently benefits Trump," Brown said. "In Pennsylvania, Clinton's 19-point lead among women matches Trump's 21-point margin among men. In Ohio, she is up 7 points among women but down 15 points with men. In Florida she is up 13 points among women but down 13 points among men."
Find your presidential match with the 2016 Candidate Matchmaker
Both Clinton and Trump are plagued by high unfavorability ratings among voters in each state.
Majorities of voters in the states say Trump would do a better job handling the economy, and in Florida and Ohio, voters said he would be the best dealing with terrorism.
READ: The GOP changed around John McCain -- and now he's fighting to get re-elected
Clinton, voters in all three states said, is more intelligent and has higher moral standards than Trump. Majorities in all three states also say the former secretary of state has the temperament to handle an international crisis.
The poll surveyed 1,051 Florida voters, 1,042 Ohio voters, and 1,077 Pennsylvania voters between April 27-May 8th and each state's polling has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Ace Pace]

Hint, polls even two months before the election are unreliable yet you allow a single poll half a year before the election to control your emotions? A few weeks ago you could be very happy with articles like this Vox piece, all "yes!".
This is just useless posting.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd hardly say its controlling my emotions. I'm not happy about it, but I'm hardly predicting Drumpf's inevitable victory.

But it is closer than I'd like. In a better, saner world, a man like Donald would never be within ten points of Clinton anywhere.

[Flagg]

Most voters don't really start paying attention until after the conventions, unfortunately. So they miss Trump going full Mussolini and just see the moderate douche he's in the process of pivoting into. At least that's how it worked pre-YouTube. Though I doubt Candy Crowly will be coming out from under the bridge where she devours children whole to host any POTUS debates this year since she broke the second 2012 POTUS debate agreement and called Willard out for being a liar.

[jwl]

Flagg, this kind of aggressive attitude isn't going to make people want to change their opinion.

I don't care? It's not like at this point people who are still clinging onto the RMS Sandtanic will be changing their minds anyway. It's only going to be when an adult takes him and sits him down and explains that in the waking world he'll never be president and he does the classy thing and stops campaigning for the nomination, or the dumb old bastard starts riots at the convention ensuring at least 4 years of president pouty-lipped douchebag.

If you're not trying to change people's minds what is the reason for your rhetoric?

[The Romulan Republic]

Most voters don't really start paying attention until after the conventions, unfortunately. So they miss Trump going full Mussolini and just see the moderate douche he's in the process of pivoting into. At least that's how it worked pre-YouTube.

That's what attack adds quoting everything he's said for the last year are for.

[Soontir C'boath]

Frankly, I would turn this stupid fucking party issue on its head. Shouldn't anyone be fucking amazed that Sanders managed to be a Congressmember and a Senator without the help of the DNC/RNC and/or them running against him all this fucking time without their fucking money?

I fucking would.

[Lord MJ]

Frankly, I would turn this stupid fucking party issue on its head. Shouldn't anyone be fucking amazed that Sanders managed to be a Congressmember and a Senator without the help of the DNC/RNC and/or them running against him all this fucking time without their fucking money?

I fucking would.

I don't know about Bernie's House runs, but for his Senate runs he was for all intents and purposes a member of the Democratic party. Dems pushed him in his Senate run while Bernie was essential for the Democrats clinching the Senate majority in 2006.

[Dominus Atheos]

Well fuck.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/ ... index.html

That's from Quinnipiac, by far the least accurate pollster in the race.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mckaycoppins ... wsrc%5Etfw



Them and Rasmussen are probably going to release several polls showing Trump having a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election, just ignore them.

[The Romulan Republic]

While that's certainly reassuring, I also will repeat my warning against complacent assumptions that Drumpf can't win. I don't want the Left half-assign the campaign or voters staying home or not donating to candidates because they assume the election is a sure thing.

[Simon_Jester]

Let's not be complacent, but at the same time there's just no point getting upset over every hint of possible bad news.

[maraxus2]

Frankly, I would turn this stupid fucking party issue on its head. Shouldn't anyone be fucking amazed that Sanders managed to be a Congressmember and a Senator without the help of the DNC/RNC and/or them running against him all this fucking time without their fucking money?

I fucking would.

Honestly, it's kinda not. Bernie's never had significant Democratic opposition since he's run for Congress. He didn't even have a Democratic opponent when he ran in 1994, his most recent close election. If he did have a Democratic opponent, he'd surely have lost. The Dems have always had a non-aggression pact with him since he represents basically everything they do, except for the fact that he won't lift a finger to build up the state party.

On top of that, Vermont is uniquely suited for independent candidates like him. Partisanship is pretty low in that state, personal campaigning is much more important than party identification or loyalty, and Vermont doesn't have the usual demographics that stop independents from running. Plus, it's the congressional equivalent to a rotten borough; Vermont has about 12% fewer people living in it than my East Bay Congressional district and about 15% fewer than in your (likely) Congressional district. The state doesn't even have enough people to qualify for Congressional representation but for the fact that it's a state.

So yes, it's impressive that a personally popular guy running in a state with low partisanship, a lily-white population, and between 12-18% less than the average congressional district can win without a national party backing him up. Except when they do. Which they have in the past.

[Grumman]

The Dems have always had a non-aggression pact with him since he represents basically everything they do, except for the fact that he won't lift a finger to build up the state party.

And Clinton does?

But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.
...
The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

Using state parties as a money laundering scheme doesn't count as building the state party by any reasonable standard.

[maraxus2]

Using state parties as a money laundering scheme doesn't count as building the state party by any reasonable standard.

I was wondering when I'd hear the "money-laundering" line from the Sanders supporters in this thread.

Leaving aside the Politico article (don't know much about the FEC chicanery they're discussing), a couple of points.

1. I was clearly talking about the STATE party. Bernie's always had an arm's-length distance between himself and the state Dems. This is pretty unambiguously true, since he wasn't a Dem until '15, and could always get elected without their support anyway.

2. Outside of that context, Clinton has a far better record when it comes to supporting lower-level Dems than Bernie does. Bill Clinton endorses and campaigns for people running for the state legislature, for God's sake. He even endorsed and campaigned for Jerry Brown in 2010, a man with mutual dislike for the Clintons. That's what I'm talking about when it comes to building the party; going and campaigning for people up and down the ticket in crucial races.

3. Leaving that aside, Hillary's financial chicanery does not make Bernie a party supporter, and I'm unsure why you're being so disingenuous as to suggest it. Bernie doesn't raise money for Democrats, apart from a few token reps that were going to get his support anyway. He doesn't raise money for his fellow Senators, apart from attending the party fundraisers that all Dem Senators must attend. His speaking schedule for Dem candidates is nowise near as robust as it should be, especially once you leave New England and a couple of liberal enclaves on the West Coast.

[Terralthra]

I really don't understand what makes people who support Hillary want to associate her so strongly with her husband. Bill Clinton endorsing and campaigning on behalf of Jerry Brown means nothing for Hillary Clinton. If she's done a bunch of down-ballot campaigning, show that she has. If your argument is "Bernie's not as much of a Democratic party supporter as former President Bill Clinton," well, I'm happy to concede that, but it means fuck-all for this primary season, because Bill ain't running for President.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's also really silly to compare Bernie's behavior on the topic with Hillary's (or Bill's), because the latter has been a prominent Democrat for a very, very long time. So of course the Clintons will have a more established history of supporting/endorsing lower-level Democrats, because they've been integral components of the DNC machine for ... what, thirty years? It's extremely disingenuous to hold Bernie to that standard. It's like if a new poster joins these forums today and you immediately get mad at him for not having contributed as much to the board as Thanas; it's a completely unreasonable comparison.

[The Romulan Republic]

Using state parties as a money laundering scheme doesn't count as building the state party by any reasonable standard.

I was wondering when I'd hear the "money-laundering" line from the Sanders supporters in this thread.

Leaving aside the Politico article (don't know much about the FEC chicanery they're discussing), a couple of points.

1. I was clearly talking about the STATE party. Bernie's always had an arm's-length distance between himself and the state Dems. This is pretty unambiguously true, since he wasn't a Dem until '15, and could always get elected without their support anyway.

2. Outside of that context, Clinton has a far better record when it comes to supporting lower-level Dems than Bernie does. Bill Clinton endorses and campaigns for people running for the state legislature, for God's sake. He even endorsed and campaigned for Jerry Brown in 2010, a man with mutual dislike for the Clintons. That's what I'm talking about when it comes to building the party; going and campaigning for people up and down the ticket in crucial races.

3. Leaving that aside, Hillary's financial chicanery does not make Bernie a party supporter, and I'm unsure why you're being so disingenuous as to suggest it. Bernie doesn't raise money for Democrats, apart from a few token reps that were going to get his support anyway. He doesn't raise money for his fellow Senators, apart from attending the party fundraisers that all Dem Senators must attend. His speaking schedule for Dem candidates is nowise near as robust as it should be, especially once you leave New England and a couple of liberal enclaves on the West Coast.

You have said nothing to refute the money laundering claim- you're just arguing, as far as I can see, is that it doesn't apply to the point you're making here, not that it isn't true. You even admit that you basically know nothing about the subject.

You also provide zero sources for any of your claims.

Regardless, I suspect we will see Bernie more strongly supporting other Democratic candidates come the general election this time around now that he's running as a Democrat. You're essentially judging him on his level of support for the Democrats from a time before he was a Democrat.

I don't blame Bernie if he doesn't engage in the Clinton-style fundraising, though, because opposing that shit is one of the cornerstones of his political agenda. Complaining about that would, essentially, be attacking Bernie for not being a blatant hypocrite on one of his main issues.

[Flagg]

He doesn't need to refute anything, the onus is on the ones claiming wrongdoing to provide evidence for their claims, which like most of the shit flung at the Clintons is probably bogus if history is any indication.

[The Romulan Republic]

He doesn't need to refute anything, the onus is on the ones claiming wrongdoing to provide evidence for their claims, which like most of the shit flung at the Clintons is probably bogus if history is any indication.

The poster in question did at least link to an article they were using as a source, which is more evidence than he provided in his reply.

[Lord MJ]

The Young Turks talked about the money laundering, weeks before Politico and others started talking about it. I'll see if I can find the video.

In other news, Berney Frank is overseeing the writing of the Democratic party platform. Oh Boy...

And the worst part of it is that previously Barney Frank was like "Of course getting campaign contributions from industry influences politicians!" Now that the Democratic Establishment chosen one is awash in money in politics Barney has changed his tune.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, it looks like certain people are rigging the convention to shut out Sanders' people and ensure that the party is firmly in support of taking big corporate money.

[Lord MJ]

And more:



Dems have been saying for years and it's been blatantly obvious that the GOP was corrupt due to having their palms greased by big money interests. But now when it comes to actually scrutinizing the same thing going on with the Democrats, people are howling in outrage at the very notion of corrupt politics. It's hard to take the Democrats seriously when they do such an about face just so their chosen one looks good. I would actually consider Hillary a much more destructive influence than Trump at this point because of her effect on the behavior of apparatus of Democratic party. In Trump's case he is actually making the GOP structure sound more reasonable "tone it down Donald." In Hillary's case the Democratic party is going to crazy town and drinking the stupid juice to prop her up.