Macho Madness
Member
New York votes Tuesday...
April U.S. Primaries |OT| Vote in 20 Turns for World Leader
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
Yeah?
Precisely. Most people understand the simplistic premises of Sanders campaign - such as BIG MONEY INFLUENCES POLITICIANS - but are unconvinced utterly of his ability to do anything about it, let alone be elected.
Bernie supporters don't have a monopoly on open minded voting. Most Hillary supporters understand precisely why they're choosing her over the alternative.
One day we'll get an actual socialist running for President, one who has a competent campaign and has actual charisma, but also understands how things need to be to get things passed and won't shy from helping downticket races like a fucking moron.
This.
This idea that it's Bernie's way or the highway or Bernie's way or you're the establishment has alienated me from him and his supporters.
Exactly, this holier-than-thou attitude adopted by Bernie's supporters - fed in part by his campaign basically applying a purity test to everything - is only offputting to the people they need to get their agenda passed in any form.
Unknown Soldier
Member
In unrelated news, George Clooney, the guy who hosted the big-ticket donors dinner in California that the Borg Queen went to instead of campaigning in New York over the weekend, says that he wants Saint Bernie to stay in this race. Of course Saint Bernie was busy getting his official Sainthood from Pope Francis over the weekend, which means by sheer coincidence neither Democratic candidate was actually in New York the weekend before the primary.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clooney-hopes-sander-stays-in-222055
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clooney-hopes-sander-stays-in-222055
The rest of Clooney's quote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet-the-press-24-7/meet-press-april-17-2016-n557266
This thread reads like an argument over whether Danial Bryam could actually beat John Cena in a fight. I found the discourse over the catering provisions on Bernie's Vatican visit particularly humorous.
When I look at this race, what I see are two intelligent, competent politicians who represent different generations of Democratic politics, even if they are both similar ages. These generations are separated economically, culturally, and by the life experiences which inform their politics.
It will be interesting to see how the Clinton's manage in an environment where Sanders supporters will represent the majority of their own party's primary voters by the time HRC's second term ends, assuming she gets that far.
When I look at this race, what I see are two intelligent, competent politicians who represent different generations of Democratic politics, even if they are both similar ages. These generations are separated economically, culturally, and by the life experiences which inform their politics.
It will be interesting to see how the Clinton's manage in an environment where Sanders supporters will represent the majority of their own party's primary voters by the time HRC's second term ends, assuming she gets that far.
Of course that article leaves off the second half of the quote, but by all means don't let full context get in the way of a point.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Has Politico always been shit?
Wow.. they, cleaved Clooneys quote. There's no way that wasn't on purpose.
Thank you for posting the rest which provides the context needed. And he is absolutely RIGHT about it from every angle. Its unfortunate that so many people seem blinded to that. You need seats to get the money out of politics. Railing against fundraising to help win said seats is LITERALLY counterproductive and a side effect of serious short term thinking.
Get the seats, get the changes passed, then there's no more fundraisers! BAM!
How this is difficult to understand is just.... beyond me. But yeah.... go ahead a protest the fundraisers I guess. Magic and pixie dust will remove the money from politics instead.
The rest of Clooney's quote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet-the-press-24-7/meet-press-april-17-2016-n557266
Thank you for posting the rest which provides the context needed. And he is absolutely RIGHT about it from every angle. Its unfortunate that so many people seem blinded to that. You need seats to get the money out of politics. Railing against fundraising to help win said seats is LITERALLY counterproductive and a side effect of serious short term thinking.
Get the seats, get the changes passed, then there's no more fundraisers! BAM!
How this is difficult to understand is just.... beyond me. But yeah.... go ahead a protest the fundraisers I guess. Magic and pixie dust will remove the money from politics instead.
Yup.
As far as I can tell overturning Citizens United will involve nominating a judge to the Supreme Court who will be willing to break with recent precedent and reverse the decision. Of course, a case would first need to come before the court to give said justice the opportunity to do that. I would hope any judge nominated by a Democrat would be willing to do that, but you never truly know how a justice will vote until they get on the bench. Also, money in politics was a problem before Citizens United, it just wasn't as big of a problem and people didn't notice as much.........
Really though, I'd be much more excited about the prospect raising money for down-ticket races if the Democrats actually had a nationwide strategy to win House and Senate races. In theory, the Democrats should be able to retake the Senate this year due simply to a favorable map and higher general election turnout, but here in Pennsylvania at least they seem to be doing the best they can to fumble that opportunity. The situation in the House is even more dire:
https://newrepublic.com/article/131919/retaking-house-democratic-pipe-dream
The Democrats have been a disaster below the Presidential level since 2009 basically, and really, except for a brief period between 2006 and 2010, since they lost the House and Senate in 1994.
Really though, I'd be much more excited about the prospect raising money for down-ticket races if the Democrats actually had a nationwide strategy to win House and Senate races. In theory, the Democrats should be able to retake the Senate this year due simply to a favorable map and higher general election turnout, but here in Pennsylvania at least they seem to be doing the best they can to fumble that opportunity. The situation in the House is even more dire:
https://newrepublic.com/article/131919/retaking-house-democratic-pipe-dream
The Democrats have been a disaster below the Presidential level since 2009 basically, and really, except for a brief period between 2006 and 2010, since they lost the House and Senate in 1994.
Right. We'll just focus on winning CA by 20.
If he loses NY and then gets swept in the Atlantic states he's going to need a much bigger win than that.
Gnome Scat
Member
And that's pretty much what's turned me off from Bernie in a nutshell.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Let me guess how all the wise PoliGAF elders think: Clooney is absolutely right in his analysis of everything... except for saying that Sanders should stay in the race. He's obviously off his rocker there, or just saying for image purposes, because it's super harmful to Hillary and to Democrats in general for Sanders to stay in.
You're delusional. You see that, don't you? Like have you been in your GAF/Reddit bubble for so long that you actually believe the nonsense you're spouting, or do you realize that you've now left reality completely?
Charisma is one thing. Bernie has a ton of it for sure, to the extent at which he has created a cult of personality that is now causing problems at midterms. But arguing that his campaign was competently run is lunacy, after they abandoned the south basically in it's entirety. That in itself should disqualify his team from every going near a candidate again, what they've done since notwithstanding.
Besada warned the thread not to get into complaining about supporters.
Battersea Power Station
Member
I don't think that's true, and when you use categorical extremes like "lunacy," "disqualify," and others, you should be required to back it up with data. Like, are there any numbers that show more campaigning would've resulted it more delegates, or is it just a gut feeling you have? What if campaigning more in the south there cost him delegates in the midwest? There are just so many variables on which the campaigns have hard, empirical data -- and we don't -- that when you pass judgement so quickly and easily, I have to believe you're being at least a little naïve.
I'm not claiming anyone is being mean to me. Saying that Sanders has no charisma is a delusional thing to say considering how he went from a nobody to a national figure in next to no time. Now, I think it's more likely that AmirOx is just using hyperbole because he's expressing his frustration with the situation, and he's trying to troll a little, even if subconsciously. But either way, that's not the kind of nonsense that should be posted with such smug certainty.
Here is the latest FEC warning letter about illegal contributions for Bernie's Campagin.
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/994/201604060300040994/201604060300040994.pdf
Here is one for earlier this year.
.lhttp://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf
Here is one for Hillary in the same time frame
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/037/201603020300039037/201603020300039037.pdf
Bernie's campaign is a mess. Anyone that has been through more then this election would see it. He can't even deal with people donating to him illegally.
I mean, I think it's a pretty reasonable critique?
Sanders's campaign is pretty clearly not that well run, and Sanders is pretty clearly a 70-year-old man who constantly repeats the same answers, has difficulty with improvisation, and apparently is physically incapable of not waving his finger wildly in the air while other people are talking. I mean, I have to be honest, in most ways he's a terrible political candidate.
I think this campaign is a great demonstration that socialism isn't as toxic in America has it has been for many years. But I definitely think that a better socialist, with a better presentation, with policies that are actually conducive to social welfare instead of wacky protectionist stuff, and with a better ability to connect with the voters of color that should actually be his base, would be cleaning Hillary Clinton's clock right about now.
That said I don't really see a problem with him staying in right til the convention if that's what he wants to do, although I would hope he would try to save some money for the downticket races at some point.
Here's an Atlantic article about the implications of Bernie abandoning the south, in light of both his performance there, and the statements made in the most recent debate.
And here is a The Nation (Who I am admittedly not familiar with, all things considered, so if there is good reason to invalidate this let me know) article from right after the South Carolina Primary on the missteps made in ignoring the south and the potential damages the decision might incur if changes are not made.
In addition, I would like to say that my statements were not made quickly by any means. We've seen the actions Sanders has taken in the South, and we've seen the repercussions it has had since then, which coincide with the predicted repercussions at the time he initiated the strategy. Whatever data they had, it didn't work out for them, and it is undeniable that the South as a whole presented a large body of delegates to Clinton, many of which were on a proportional basis. Thus, while he may not have won the states, he would have reduced the lead Clinton gained from it into one perhaps a bit more manageable later on.
Battersea Power Station
Member
No, that's a completely unreasonable critique. Show me where someone predicted, a few months ago, that Sanders would be within 200 delegates in late April. Show me someone credible who predicted last year, that Sanders would be having an impact on the national conversation, or that he would even still be relevant to the news networks. This campaign has overachieved, and for some armchair analysts to sit back and pooh-pooh it like they know exactly where he should've campaigned and for how long (as if he ever had a chance in the south) is up there with the heights of hubris. I wish you guys would just admit that you're as clueless as the next forum-goer about what info the campaigns use to make the tough decisions they do.
There's no data to support that staying in the south a few more days would have made an impact on his delegate count, and these articles don't make that case either. They simply point out that it's a huge voting block and it's important.
No, you haven't. That's a falsity. You've seen the strategy and you've seen the results. You have no idea whether those results are repercussions of the strategy.
Is it not likely that Sanders' policies and stump speeches simply don't resonate with southern voters? What if those policies and focus points actively turn off the voters? Then, wouldn't campaigning there be actually a negative? That's an extreme example for illustrative purposes, but this "abandoning the south" meme is misguided. There's no evidence to suggest that he could've gotten better results through not "abandoning" them.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
In a process that awards everything proportionally, having only one other competitor, and having an army of people inundating you with money every time you win or lose, 200+ delegates behind doesn't seem that impressive. Keep in mind that being 200+ back right now is basically his peak, he was 300 back a few weeks ago and will be slipping further behind by the end of this month.
Battersea Power Station
Member
It doesn't matter that it's not impressive to the point at hand. The point is that Sanders was never predicted to be having this impact on the primary, even to the point of aggravating his opponent. I mean, Hillary has actually changed her speeches on some points over the course of the campaign because of him. That's nuts, dude, and is not the sign of an incompetent campaign. This is a candidate who people love to tout as unelectable. It's simply stunning that he's in this far.
It's a two person race, I could have told you all this would happen back when Biden announced he wouldn't run. This is what happens when it's one-on-one.
I'm going to be honest. You're being more than a bit passive aggressive here towards Poli-GAF, and I'm not quite sure why. If your argument is that no one knows anything about the data campaigns have, then does that make all discussions pointless? We have knowledge of the strategies undertaken, we have polls from each area over a period of time, and we have results of how each race turned out, along with criticism and advice given at the time it was all happening. We have the data from past elections, and historical precedent certainly counts for more than nothing.
But putting all that aside, more than anything, there is a clearly a difference here in how we see things. When you look at the Sanders campaign, you seem to see a small team, an underdog, make it further than anyone ever expected them to. I can understand that, it's a good story. But I look at the Sanders campaign as a Democratic candidate who performed roughly according to expectations set once he began campaigning in earnest, and in the end, did not meet the number of delegates required to win the nomination. On a very basic level, it doesn't matter how much farther he made it than people expected him to. He stuck to his demographic, they carried him as far as they could, and he got his message out, serving as a valuable test for any similarly minded candidates that may appear in the future. A touching story does not win primaries in this or any other universe, which is coincidentally where we would need to go in order to see the evidence you are demanding regarding the idea that changing his strategy in the south would have had a significant effect on the race.
gutter_trash
Banned
+ his laugh during the Gun Control portion of last Thursday's debate will crush him bad in Maryland. Like mega crush
Battersea Power Station
Member
You have successfully predicted the past, yet I remain unconvinced that the Sanders campaign is incompetent.
Look, I'm sure you're all nice people and if we met in person (I live on Queens, by the way) we'd understand each other a lot better and this topic would take 5 minutes to settle before we go back to doing something else. But in person, no one sounds as smug as some of the posts here and speaks in such absolute certainties. It's just off-putting and it harms the conversation. If your goal is to show how much smarter you are and how awful everyone who disagrees is, then go for it. But it your goal is to have a discussion or to even potentially convince someone of your argument, the whole tone in here (whoop, whoop, police!) should change, in my opinion. With that, good night, since I'm way past my bedtime.
I don't mean to be passive or aggressive. I mean to present a direct criticism: OTs on GAF are often hostile and insular and look down on newcomers and those who disagree. That's true for NBA GAF, tennis GAF (MIMIC I'm looking at you), PoliGAF and most others.
Now I already told myself I'm going to bed so I'll keep this short: the problem with your analysis of whether the campaign is doing a good job or a bad job is that you're only looking at the results. You're ignoring the initial quantity with which they're working. The Sanders campaign is not a small team (dunno where you got that idea) but they're handling a small talent with a very limited appeal. And they are doing a great job at maximizing that appeal, to their great credit.
Here's my question to you: is there any result that would convince you that his campaign is competent? I'll assume that if they (fantastically) win the primary, you'd have to give them some props, right? What about New York? Let's take another fantasy result and say he wins by 20 points. Would you say they're doing a decent job? If they lose by 20, then they're terrible, obviously. So what is the minimal NY result, a number somewhere in-between, Sanders has to win for you to believe that the campaign is competent? I'm honestly curious (and it will give me something to root for so I'm more entertained during the counting
good night forreals yallYou don't ask for this kind of specificity from Bernie Sanders.
People provided links to his campaign's missteps, to documentation showing the Sanders campaign's poor accounting, to considerations of his campaign's incompetence in bypassing the south.
The simple argument is that the south in total is worth some 700+ delegates. If you get extra percentage points in Texas you could get more than just a handful of delegates, rather than campaigning for ten percentage points to get a whopping two delegates.
Calling the other side 'smug' is complaining about how mean the other aside is. You're just trying to hide it.
No, and if you were trying to get to help me to see I was delusional, I'd hope your argument was better then "YOU'RE CRAZY YOU SHOULD SEE THAT CUZ IF YOU DONT WOW GUYS JUST WOW."
I mean I've accepted that's about the level of discourse I can expect at this point from certain true believers, because it's not like there's any shot left of Bernie winning... but damn, put some extra effort into your commentary so that I have something substantive worth actually responding to. I listed several things in my post you could have taken specific issue with and attempted to describe what was wrong with it, but instead you chose ad hominems and nonsense. Try harder, I know it's in you.
Battersea Power Station
Member
I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. Thank you for replying to me even if I was being unreasonable. I'll consider what you all said and reflect on whether my attitude needs adjustment.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Well, today's the big day.
RageWaffles
Member
Just voted. Biggest turnout I've ever seen at my polling place. There were 5 people there to vote—that's more voters than poll workers! Never seen that before. And I had to wait in line while an old man talked to the poll workers about Dancing with the Stars. The hype is real.
Can't it be both? I like the effect that Bernie is having on the race, on Hillary's campaign, and the overall national conversation, but don't like some of the toxic hard-to-unify-the-party-around-later rhetoric he has put forth around Hillary or his complete ambivalence toward down ticket races (his support of which seems to boil down to "I get people excited, I get more people to come out and vote, and just by the nature of having a bigger turnout, I can get Dems elected down ballot" which doesn't really pan out in reality).
Pretty much.
I really, really didn't mind Bernie up until recently. Heck, I liked him pulling Hillary left, and liked him in general. But once it became clearly apparent that his mathematical chances of securing nominaiton are daunting-at-best, he should not have resorted to cowardly character attacks. He's poisoning the chances of party unity, and thus the chances of a victory in November; this essentially translates into poisoning the chances that we get Citizens United struck down, as that prospect is directly tied to success in November.
I would've had zero issues with him staying in had he stuck to this being an issue-based campaign. But he's continued to hint and dogwhistle charges of Clinton's corruption - without being able to cite a single instance despite being asked on several occasions - and now I can hardly wait to say good riddance to the pest. I've followed primaries for a few decades now, and I've never felt this way about a primary opponent.
This is the 7th cycle where I've followed closely, so.. I've been through a few. 😋decades? your not that old
I voted this morning at about 6:30am and I was told that I was the first Republican to vote at that precinct, which isn't a huge surprise considering where I live (NY's 12th congressional district).
According to 538 it is one of Trump's weakest in the state and one of Kasitch's strongest, so I will be very interested to see how close it ends up being. This might be the first time my vote has actually mattered since I attended college in Pennsylvania.
My GF wasn't able to vote on the Democratic side because she is a registered Independent and she didn't realize she needed to formally register as a Democrat until it was too late.
According to 538 it is one of Trump's weakest in the state and one of Kasitch's strongest, so I will be very interested to see how close it ends up being. This might be the first time my vote has actually mattered since I attended college in Pennsylvania.
My GF wasn't able to vote on the Democratic side because she is a registered Independent and she didn't realize she needed to formally register as a Democrat until it was too late.
Haven't been following the process for as long as you have... But I've had enough of it too. Time for him to step aside before he makes things worse for her chances in the GE. Well, drop out after he loses by ~15 points today.
Oh good, another day has arrived in which the Bernie campaign will take another knockout blow and my Facebook friends will be in complete denial about it.
One of my friends wants to vote out Ron Wyden because he endorsed Hillary instead of Bernie. Ron Wyden. The guy who most people credit for stopping SOPA.
One of my friends wants to vote out Ron Wyden because he endorsed Hillary instead of Bernie. Ron Wyden. The guy who most people credit for stopping SOPA.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I had previously said that a long primary was going to only be good for the Democrats. However, I do think things are getting very heated now and damage is definitely being done to Hillary.
I don't think the damage is underserved though. Sanders definitely should have had a better answer. My guess is he is too polite.
More than even the specifics, every single position has to be questioned. Why 12 not 15? Why dodd frank but not GS? Why yes on iraq? Why no on gay marriage till 13? Not going far enough is the same as giving up something. From an investment perspective it is the same.
Drop out now? Under 200 lead and about 1600 left? Why so scared? Today will likely be a big blow but he's going all the way at this point.
I am a big progressive and identify as independent. Do i care about Sanders hurting Clinton in the general? Meh. No as long as attacks are legitimate. It's not just an election, it is a struggle for the Soul of the democratic party and democracy in our country.
It SHOULD be considered dirty for democrats to take big money. Not only does it of course affect policy, it basically creates a system where they are getting paid to lose. Bernie Frank admitted as such. Democrats have to play ball with Wall Street and special interests because if not Republicans would get all the money. Well, they will always get more money because they are more corrupt. But by taking 20 percent of the money you cant turn around and point out corruption. Bernie can do that, and that's what he is doing. In my opinion, in the long run it is good for our country.
LyleLanley
Banned
How come I didn't get a sticker when I voted today?
It's a revolution!!
- Status