I hope not, all she really needed to do was several campaign stops to get in the local news outlets and show she cares enough about the state to show up and not go straight to GE mode 100% yet.
There is little advantage, like some other states, to doing TV or other types of marketing since the effect in the GE would be virtually nil.
Also from what I recall reading trade liberalisation has been the most effective at poverty reduction in places with strong institutions. But less so in places of institutional void.
It also just can't be looked at from the income side but what that income buys due to liberalisation reducing costs.
She dedicated this week to traversing the state for campaign events and fund-raisers and will return next week. Despite earlier signals that her campaign would avoid spending on expensive advertising in California, the campaign will begin running television ads in the Los Angeles, Fresno and Sacramento markets on Friday.
That's one hell of a question. Honestly I'd have to do a lot of thinking and try to figure out the damage done by each candidate. The debates would be monumentally important, that's for damn sure.
If a "crazy" Democrat actually got onto the national stage and won the nomination, it would mean there is something fundamentally wrong with the party. Like there would be rot at its very core. It's not something that should blindside anyone observant and self-conscious enough to be willing to evaluate the candidate of their chosen party and be willing to break tribal bonds to not vote for them. As such, I think the question has to be "what would the Democratic party that let this happen actually look like?". I'm not sure I have a good answer. I'd like to think the party is too diverse and too open to compromise to let any of its fringe elements absolutely take over.
You think this is condescending? I’m using small words to help you understand what many, many, many of us get: your assertion that you can’t in good conscience vote for Hillary is an insult to me and women and queer folks and all the people who benefit and even have a chance to thrive under Democratic policies. You’d consign us to 4 years of Trump and two or three decades of a disgusting, vile Supreme Court because you have a sad feelz in your tum-tum?
You’re goddamn right I’m condescending to you. You deserve this.
Get with the fucking program.
If a "crazy" Democrat actually got onto the national stage and won the nomination, it would mean there is something fundamentally wrong with the party. Like there would be rot at its very core. It's not something that should blindside anyone observant and self-conscious enough to be willing to evaluate the candidate of their chosen party and be willing to break tribal bonds to not vote for them. As such, I think the question has to be "what would the Democratic party that let this happen actually look like?". I'm not sure I have a good answer. I'd like to think the party is too diverse and too open to compromise to let any of its fringe elements absolutely take over.
A party where Bernie Sanders had the majority popular vote.
In that sense, I'm glad the so many Southern states go near the beginning of the primary schedule. Not just because it gives better representation to black voters, who are often underrepresented, but because black voters (and southern Dems in general, since there are so many of them in solid red states) tend to be more cynical voters. It's not just Bernie Sanders that got rejected in the South, it was far left populism and paper-thin promises that got rejected pretty much wholesale.
People are hesitant to realize that all the things that people are just now realizing about Bernie first got clocked in the South.
We need some proper election romance/porn fan fiction. I want to read about The Donald making the Democratic party great again when he seduces and slays Hillary's gash. Maybe a Hillary, Huma, Ivanka, and Melania (it isn't incest because they aren't really related!) foursome. Helping to make America sexy again. Bernie and Trump hit the showers after a debate and catch each others eyes (among other things) across the steamy room and move together through magnetic attraction. How about a gigantic orgy with all the failed Republican candidates? An S&M flick where the Koch brothers mete out abuse in their basement dungeon onto one candidate at a time? Santorum gets a heaping helping of his namesake?
I disagree with Stein on GMO and Vaccination issues, but I would have no problem supporting someone who believes those things if that's the nominee. Those are so much smaller of issues than proposing an outright ban on muslims and promoting collective punishment.
Again, he is literally running on a platform that bans muslims from entering the country, and the collective punishment of killing people just for being related to terrorists. Please tell me how anything the radical left does is in any way comparable to that.
That's literally the type of thing that made Mussolini and Hussein evil. Anti-vax isn't evil, collective punishment and by extension Trump straight up is.
Edit: And I agree this type of absolute moralistic response isn't going to change anyone's mind, but this both sides are the same shit that's even being invoked with donald fucking trump is pissing me off, and i need it get it off my chest.
This made me Google aroudn for Jill Stein's stance on vaccines, and I'm not seeing anything that says she's an anti-vaxxer?
(Not that I'm a big fan of Stein, given her stance on things like nuclear power. I was just curious if she went that far down the pseudo-science rabbit hole.)
Of course I have reservations. Why do you think I said "fall on my sword?" But to think that some billionaire businessman who doesn't even know who the most dangerous threat to America is knows who some cunt white supremacist is on the fly is ridiculous. This is a horrible argument. Do you think a man of Donald Trump's stature knows whom he spoke to last week when he closed a deal? No. When you make contact with so many people everyday, of course you're going to have a memory problem. The whole David Duke thing was completely a media hit job.
Wow, that basketball. Cringey. He could have at least dressed the part. Dammit, man, how badly do you want California? Try harder! Christie failed when he forgot to wear something to that Cowboy's game, too. Classic. If only both teams could have lost that playoff game. Oh well.
This is how I define it as pandering: What's the percentage chance the candidate would actually do such a thing, were they not involved in an election? It is 0%? Then it's pandering. Even if it's 1%, I'll cut them a little slack, but I've never heard of Bernie being a basketball (or sports of any type) fan, and sure as hell not the type with a bucket list item of "see a game in every NBA arena." Christie's thing, yeah, I can at least imagine that he'd actually have fun at an NFL game, and he's there courting campaign money face-to-face. Moreover, is it a thing they could be doing privately to express support for? If yes but are choosing to do so in public then that's also pandering. Christie is up on the owner's booth not at all trying to hide it. Bernie just being at the game wouldn't be interesting enough, but he just had to be seen among the masses
of people who paid thousands of dollars for tickets
.
Please tell me we have footage of Sanders chanting along to some 1990's jock jams track. Might as well salvage this.
Typical disclaimer if anyone wanted to ask: Yes, I would groan just as loudly if Hillary were at that game. Please tell me she wasn't. She's better than that. Or at least smart enough to know to hide in a luxury box that doesn't have a camera pointed straight at it the whole game. Or at bare minimum, if she was there, that we have some embarrassing footage of her, too. I'd be cool with that.
Hmm, it kind of clicked today why it wouldn't make sense for a Jewish man who survived the Holocaust (Magneto) to be at the same rally as a Nazi (Red Skull).
Should have worked on that Trump super villain image a bit more, dude. Nice attempt though.
Hmm, it kind of clicked today why it wouldn't make sense for a Jew that survived the Holocaust (Magneto) to be at the same rally as a Nazi (Red Skull).
Should have worked on that Trump super villain image a bit more, dude. Nice attempt though.
"I don't always" use "quotation" marks, "but when I do, I" am sure to "bury" what "passes for" wit in "obnoxious" notation. "Stay 'thirsty', my 'friends'"
I mean, she debated him 9 times and he said the same things every time. You could've put a jar of mayo at the podium with a taped recording of his stump speech and it would've been hard to tell the difference.
Jar of mayo would have been more respectful though.
Unless Christie wore a shirt saying "FUCK THE COWBOYS WITH A GARDEN RAKE" or something to that effect, going to that game was always going to be a mistake.
A party where Bernie Sanders had the majority popular vote.
In that sense, I'm glad the so many Southern states go near the beginning of the primary schedule. Not just because it gives better representation to black voters, who are often underrepresented, but because black voters (and southern Dems in general, since there are so many of them in solid red states) tend to be more cynical voters. It's not just Bernie Sanders that got rejected in the South, it was far left populism and paper-thin promises that got rejected pretty much wholesale.
People are hesitant to realize that all the things that people are just now realizing about Bernie first got clocked in the South.
Eh, Bernie's policy positions aren't his issue (not I said his positions, not his specific plans) - he's basically a New Deal / Great Society Democrat w/ socially liberal stances. He's a more dovish Hubert Humphrey. The problem is Bernie Sanders, the politician is the issue whether it's his paper thin plans or his paper thin personality.
A party where Bernie Sanders had the majority popular vote.
In that sense, I'm glad the so many Southern states go near the beginning of the primary schedule. Not just because it gives better representation to black voters, who are often underrepresented, but because black voters (and southern Dems in general, since there are so many of them in solid red states) tend to be more cynical voters. It's not just Bernie Sanders that got rejected in the South, it was far left populism and paper-thin promises that got rejected pretty much wholesale.
People are hesitant to realize that all the things that people are just now realizing about Bernie first got clocked in the South.
My assumption was that this hypothetical "crazy" Democrat would be equally unprepared for the job and hold some seriously dangerous views ala Trump. I've been critical of Sanders for many reasons but he doesn't fit that bill. But you kind of highlighted my point. You aren't going to go far just on the back of color-blind (perceived or real) liberal populism with the Black vote having such strong veto power in the Democratic party. A crazier, dumber Sanders would fare even worse than regular Sanders. A Democratic party that would nominate some far-left wackadoodle would have to be a Democratic party that lost one or more major minority groups right? Or became so navel-gazing that something like The Young Turks (or some left-version of Fox News) were the media outlet of choice. I mean Trump represents years of the Southern Strategy, Right-Wing media bubble, the Tea Party, etc. at work. I've been concerned with some of the things I've seen on the Left during this election but we aren't anywhere near having corresponding issues/movements/bubbles of equal strength on the Left as far as I can see.
My assumption was that this hypothetical "crazy" Democrat would be equally unprepared for the job and hold some seriously dangerous views ala Trump. I've been critical of Sanders for many reasons but he doesn't fit that bill. But you kind of highlighted my point. You aren't going to go far just on the back of color-blind (perceived or real) liberal populism with the Black vote having such strong veto power in the Democratic party. A crazier, dumber Sanders would fare even worse than regular Sanders. A Democratic party that would nominate some far-left wackadoodle would have to be a Democratic party that lost one or more major minority groups right? Or became so navel-gazing that something like The Young Turks (or some left-version of Fox News) were the media outlet of choice. I mean Trump represents years of the Southern Strategy, Right-Wing media bubble, the Tea Party, etc. at work. I've been concerned with some of the things I've seen on the Left during this election but we aren't anywhere near having corresponding issues/movements/bubbles of equal strength on the Left as far as I can see.
I agree, the stark contrast between the two parties health-wise this year is stunning. The GOP has far deeper problems than a crazy front runner. They have decades of hate built up against their leadership and dwindling demographics.
Hillary is off to California for the week? A shame. Every minute and dollar spent there at this point needs to be used against Trump. Even on pessimistic results the media will call the race Tuesday; Possibly after NJ closes but I could appreciate some professional courtesy to wait for the first numbers in CA to avoid any annoying twitter cries of counting errors. Have a feeling it'll mostly be GE talk from her, though, which is what it should be.
Her polling average is about 55% in CA. Even if she were non-viable in every other contest remaining, she only needs 54% there for a majority of pledged total. Even if she "only" underperformed 20 points in all the remaining contests, it's still a win with only 32% of CA needed. The most realistic model I can make is just 23% needed, which is a number of votes she surely has banked in CA already via early voting. It's literally already over before any polls open on the 7th. So many ways to mess with the numbers to amuse myself. It's divine.
I think Trump is a special case because it's hard to say what he'll take advice on and he seems to relish the idea of being the person in charge of foreign deal-making and similar. If, like, Herman Cain had become president I expect that his policy towards Uzbekibekibekistan would have just been whatever the Republican establishment thinks about Uzbekibekibekistan. He'd just outsource all of that to former GW Bush advisors, which is bad but which is obviously not a Republican deal-breaker. But Trump really likes to be in charge, and has demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to establishment advice on things he actually doesn't know much about (look at his campaign). I expect that Trump would be really engaged in all of the things that the president can do without having to work with Congress - I expect that he would really enjoy going out and trying to make "good deals" with Russia and China and Mexico and that he wouldn't listen to people telling him that his deals are dumb. Plus Trump just seems to have no respect at all for basic constitutional rights.
For the most part I think it makes a lot of sense that Republicans vote Republican no matter how crazy the nominee is and Democrats vote Democrat no matter how crazy the nominee is. The craziness has to line up just right with what the president can actually do on his or her own for it to matter very much. I'd vote an anti-vaxxer over a Romney-type any day. I expect that very few Republicans would abandon a nominee for being racist short of them shouting "nigger" at someone and then not apologizing - ultimately it's just too easy to rationalize this as not mattering to what they'd actually do as president.
Short of having a Trump-like foreign policy, the way a left-wing candidate loses me to a Romney-type is probably by going full Communist and being sympathetic to violent overthrow of the system and the suppression of media that sides against the people. Anything else I'd probably shrug and not worry too much since Congress will stop them.
