That link you made showed PAC donations, separated from individual donations which you still don't understand. Try reading your own links. We were talking about individual donations earlier, which have much stricter restrictions. I'm not the one who redirected, you are.
Super Tuesday 2016 |OT| The Final Incursion is a double Incursion (Mar 5-15 contests)
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
That link you made showed PAC donations, separated from individual donations which you still don't understand. Try reading your own links. We were talking about individual donations earlier, which have much stricter restrictions. I'm not the one who redirected, you are.
I just don't think any Bernie fans have been unbiased when crunching numbers, if they've bothered at all.
I keep saying, outside of caucuses (of which there is only one left with over 40 Delegates, the rest are smallish numbers) and his home state and borders, he doesn't win by big margins, ever. The biggest was Oklahoma and barely by 10 points.
Bernie wins Caucuses, Hillary wins Primaries.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Huh?
Individuals can still donate to superPacs and individuals can donate directly (with limits) to campaigns. My general point is that money corrupts politicians.
Please summarize your disagreement with my point clearly. I will then respond.
You never actually showed me your spreadsheet showing Bernie coming within 170 delegates at the end
Corporations and unions are banned from donating money directly to political campaigns. That was the whole point I made with my first post. Those numbers in your link were not from the organizations, they were from the people working there. My problem was you mischaracterized those numbers. They broke it up into donations from individuals and from pacs.
boiled goose
good with gravy
haha I'm shy. I can tell you my predicted spreads for any state you ask.You never actually showed me your spreadsheet showing Bernie coming within 170 delegates at the end
Ok if there was any confusion it was not intentional. I dont think it changes my points.
My point has always been that both donations to campaigns and pacs from both individuals and pacs are bad, so nothing really changes. Direct or PAC donations don't really make real difference IMO.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Super tuesday II? All 5
Ohio, Illinois Hillary single digits. both really close.
Florida, NC Hillary double digits but not that bad
Missouri Sander single digits close
It does. For example, do you think Harvard University made it's faculty donate to Hillary's campaign? That's actually illegal, they could get in a lot of trouble for that. If you want to talk about people being bought out you need to be pointing at SuperPACs, not individual donations (which are capped at $2,000 a person). You misrepresented those numbers and there's posters who bought into that. You need to be straight up with this shit because it's muddy as hell due to Citizen's United creating it's own thing.
That's not very specific?
Hillary has dominated in the south, so I'm curious as to see what "not that bad" means.
She's consistantly won 40 - 60 points over Bernie in the south.
Here's another question, or rather a friendly bet, what do you expect the Hillary's delegate lead to be after the 15th?
boiled goose
good with gravy
That's not very specific?
Hillary has dominated in the south, so I'm curious as to see what "not that bad" means.
She's consistantly won 40 - 60 points over Bernie in the south.
Here's another question, or rather a friendly bet, what do you expect the Hillary's delegate lead to be after the 15th?
Her lead is by 213 now right? I expect it to be ~250 after the 15th.
Wow. You really have not been unbiased with your number crunching. I admire your optimism tho!!
Florida and NC will be blow out wins for her just like the rest of the south, you should look up how many delegates are on offer there ;-)
I feel like Bernie supporters are taking this MI upset and applying it to every other state on the map, ignoring all previous results and correct polls (South especially) there is enough data there to show Hillary is going to win by 40 points comfortably in the rest of the south.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I have actually not updated my numbers at all as results have come in, so that may be my downfall.
I expect Florida to be a bit different from the rest of the South.
I think NC will be less bad than Virgina and SC.
If my predictions are wrong, they are wrong. no biggie haha.
I have explained to you that it doesnt matter if it is the organization itself or from the individuals. When your support comes disproportionately from a certain source, legislation will get skewed and candidates that the source supports will get propped.
Fair enough, I look at the map and see a sea of yellow, I'm just not sure why they would be any different. Hillary started in Florida weeks ago as well.
If anything I'd be predicting an actual upset in Ohio.
Except if you're going to say that you need to point to proof in the legislative record, you can't just say it. Receipts dude, receipts.
Also, it doesn't change that you misrepresented that information in your original post.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Now you are moving the goal posts and I have answered that question multiple times.
Do climate change denying politicians get funded by big oil? yes. You recognize this right?
Apply the same logic to Hillary and her donors. But she was tough! you say. guess she should have been even tougher then if they are still sending legalized bribes her way and making a killing while wages for the average american stagnate.
Many many examples. One easy one is Glass-Steagall. Opposed by Clinton.
brainchild
Banned
Bernie has no problem admitting that he's beholden to the 'special interest group' that is the contributors to his campaign, and those are individual contributors, so what's the problem? He's not pretending like their contributions don't affect his decisions.
It doesn't matter who donates the money, there will be a significant influence where there is significant contribution. If there's going to be a significant influence in a democracy, it's best if it comes from contributions that represent the interest of the people, not corporations.
It doesn't matter who donates the money, there will be a significant influence where there is significant contribution. If there's going to be a significant influence in a democracy, it's best if it comes from contributions that represent the interest of the people, not corporations.
uncelestial
Member
This point of view completely ignores the massive age divide between Bernie and Hillary supporters. Candidates that are more like Bernie *are* inevitable. The shift away from candidates like Hillary is too. And in comparison to what the next generation of Democrats/liberals believe and stand for, Hillary *is* regressive. That generation doesn't speak for the entire Democratic party (yet), but you're really out on a limb if you think a candidate getting 15% among the under 30 demographic is the future of the party 8, or even 4 years from now.
The people who roll their eyes at intersectional politics and disregard young people who rant about corruption and nepotism taking opportunities away from them are comfortable now. But that's the entire political narrative for millenials. That's all there is to us. Just be aware that nothing lasts forever.
The next contest is actually the Republican US Virgin Islands caucus, which is today. Voters are supposed to choose 6 delegates, here is the ballot:
http://usvigop.org/wp-content/uploa...allot-Republican-Party-of-the-USVI-2016V5.pdf
Poor organization by Kasich, Rubio and Trump.
http://usvigop.org/wp-content/uploa...allot-Republican-Party-of-the-USVI-2016V5.pdf
Poor organization by Kasich, Rubio and Trump.
That is, until young millennials move out and figure out the world isn't as simple as "wall street is bad" and "free college!". They'll be annoyed by the short sightedness of the next generation too.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Ding.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Such a condescending post yet completely devoid of substance. It has hints of relative privation logical fallacy. Also hints of strawman. The argument has never been addressing these issues will solve everything.
I think that the financial industry effectively running our government and affordable education are problems worth solving.
The complexity or simplicity of the problem has no bearing on whether the problem exists or whether it's worth solving.
I see this discussion brought again and again, but I still don't understand what's the issue with the employees of Goldman Sachs (for example) donating for the campaign of one candidate. Are they not humans with the same rights? Is one evil because one works in a corporation like Goldman Sachs? If they shouldn't donate should they still be able to vote? Are they all robots without own opinions?
Wouldn't people with better jobs be more inclined to have more disposable income to donate more?
What the assumption here, I don't get? Is this suppose to be some financial scheme through which the company gives money to the employees for them to donate? Or what's the problem?
Edit: wouldn't be the sane option of any employee of any company on Wall Street to support the opponent of the candidate who has as main policy "Fuck Wall Street"?
Wouldn't people with better jobs be more inclined to have more disposable income to donate more?
What the assumption here, I don't get? Is this suppose to be some financial scheme through which the company gives money to the employees for them to donate? Or what's the problem?
Edit: wouldn't be the sane option of any employee of any company on Wall Street to support the opponent of the candidate who has as main policy "Fuck Wall Street"?
The irony of this post is pretty great.
uncelestial
Member
Yes, I'm sure we'll decide that corruption, wealth inequality, and crippling debt aren't big issues after all.
(*eyeroll*)
Leona Lewis
Banned
Perhaps he was overly blunt, but his point (I think) is that the
line of thinking is an oversimplification that will become more nuanced with age and experience.
Of course these are issues worth solving, but revolution only happens when its architects are engaged on a deep level with the systemic underpinnings that support the corruption, nepotism, etc. that plague the overarching system in the first place. Like the fact that campaign finance reform is not something the president can enact. Like the fact that small "d" democratic politics is about more than representatives and senators voting for stuff, but also elected leaders like city treasurers who invest and disburse municipal funds, school boards who approve personnel and curricula changes, and other positions whose influence can make all the difference.
In other words, politics is a "bottom up" process, not the "top down" situation that campaign promises like free public college education and financial regulation intimate.
What is implicit in posts like GetLucky's is a worry that these young people Bernie has successfully energized will be deflated, that the cowboy he's presented himself as who's going to whip all the bad guys into shape will be outgunned and outmaneuvered by a political climate he's not ready to navigate.
He'll be dealing with an obstructionist legislature, a potentially crippled Supreme Court, and a staggering national debt his plans as they currently exist would only accelerate, but if you listen to his stump speech, you'd think the sole obstacle to total panacea is that Bernie alone has the necessary DEX to wield the magic wand.
I aim to please.
Wow you said it better than I ever could. Yes I was too blunt and it was simplified, but after all this is a videogame message board.
I remember in 2008 during the primary I went to see Bill Clinton speak at Penn State. Most of the crowd were Obama supporters who just wanted to see Bill even though he was speaking on behalf of Hillary. A couple people had a giant sign that said "do the math, it's over". That's the phase we are at in this primary too.
Bernie won't do as bad with minorities in FL as he did in the rest of the south. Problem is he's still going to do bad and Hillary will win whites with a big margin because of how much of that electorate is old people.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Are there any other primaries before next Tuesdays OH/FL super tuesday?
Virgin Islands Republican Caucus
District of Columbia Republican Convention
Guam Republican Convention
Northern Mariana Islands Democratic Convention
Wyoming Republican Convention
boiled goose
good with gravy
Talk to Sanders supporters.
This magic wand talk is a caricature.
They largely want someone up top fighting for them and not special interests. They are not deluded that everything will get instantly achieved.
There is nothing more bottom up than Sanders campaign.
Yes change requires hard work. That is exactly what i see when i see all the work Sanders volunteers put in.
You are saying change requires work but then saying you will be disappointed after all this work.
Like what are you saying the alternative is??
Thought Wyoming was the 1st March? And nothing seems to happen at these conventions ...
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I've literally given up on trying to explain that. Do people not realize that if Tim Cook donates $2700 to a liberal candidate, he has to list Apple, Inc. as his employer? So that it looks like Apple just donated that money, even though it was from Cook, who could very well be supporting a social platform?
But no. Burn down every company, and the people who work for them. The only donations that matter are from students.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Yes, the campaign is very bottom up, very grassroots. I think you misread my post, though, if you think the campaign is ultimately what I think will be important here.
I wasn't characterizing all Sanders supporters, but my point is that if they remain as engaged in local and municipal affairs as they are now in the presidential race, they will have a much better shot of achieving what they want (with or without a President Sanders).
I just don't see the historical evidence that they will.
Change does require hard work, but that hard work doesn't become any easier just because someone is elected president. Ask Obama's supporters.
i have made a few posts that has directly called this out and got no responses. same posters in here, just ignoring how one can have fun with its accounting rules.
Your Entertainer
Member
That may be true, but it's not the main issue here. I think what's pathetic are the new attempts to downplay the monetary corporate influence in politics that suddenly cropped up when Hillary was on the receiving end. It is a big deal - full stop - and the fact that Sanders, and hell, Trump, are calling attention to it in the national spotlight is also a big deal. I love how these people claim to be against Citizens United, then take the opinion that Hillary's monetary associations are somehow completely benign, or buy her blatant lie that money has never, ever influenced a single political decision of hers. She has done a very poor job of handling these concerns, doing everything from changing the subject (9-11, first WOMAN president!), to playing victim (this "smear campaign") to lying (as above) to Obama-riding (well he stood up to them when it was time!). In all fairness - she really has no room on this issue.
But no. Continue to ignore it, or trip over oneself attempting to defend it, or paint Sanders supporters with a broad brush in a reactionary manner.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Yes, so you are essentially criticizing Sanders supporters based on historical evidence and not current facts. That's what i think is unfair.
As someone that was disappointed with obama, it was not because of what he failed to achieve, but instead i was disappointed because of HOW he governed.
It was concession after concession to special interests and Republicans. Compromise is not the issue. It's the lack of honesty. There was no change. It was business as usual.
I dont think a Bernie Sanders presidency would necessarily look the same as an obama one, so your historical Precedent argument is not compelling to me.
nitekrawlwer
Member
When current facts like low voter turnout for that group align with historical evidence it is a fair criticism.
boiled goose
good with gravy
The Sanders supporters are not the ones not turning out.
The original critique was of Sanders supporters. You are blaming the excited people for the unexcited people.
The argument was that once Bernie is elected, his supporters will no longer be involved in the process.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Once again, you are missing my point.
I don't know how many ways to say it, but you will lose if you continue focusing on "There is nothing more bottom up than Sanders campaign" and "I dont think a Bernie Sanders presidency would necessarily look the same as an obama one." All I'm seeing from you is the campaign, the campaign, the campaign.
Sorry, but any revolution centered around figureheads rather than ideas will fail because, in the absence of a future dictatorship, the campaign doesn't matter. The real change comes after, and that's what the historical precedence that's not "compelling" to you (and which, by the way, long predates Obama) bears out. I'm just not very optimistic given the way you've already fallen into this trap:
This is not how politics works. This is not how change works. This is not how anything works.
The "someone up top" makes no difference if supporters are not equally, if not more engaged with the local political milieu. How many of these young Sanders supporters know their city council? Or their comptroller? How many of them will vote in 2018 when Sanders himself is not on the ticket? Sanders has done zilch compared to Hillary in supporting down-ballot candidates, yet I'm supposed to believe that he'll suddenly start playing messenger?
Not seeing it, sorry.
That wasn't the argument. The argument was that his supporters will be involved, but their sights will be aimed in the wrong places because Sanders' rhetoric has conditioned them to look up to the big boogeymen rather than down at their own communities.
nitekrawlwer
Member
I don't care about excitement level. Even if one member of the team is working hard it doesn't matter if his team loses. The whole team loses
Data shows us that despite excitement(which Obama did have) doesn't change that people vote for their President but not much else. I suppose we'll have to wait until 2018 to see. I'm certainly not holding my breath.
New Washington Post/Univision poll has Rubio closer to Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?postshare=7711457620491285&tid=ss_tw
Trump 38
Rubio 31
Cruz 19
Kasich 4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?postshare=7711457620491285&tid=ss_tw
Trump 38
Rubio 31
Cruz 19
Kasich 4
Worrying, come on tuesday already!
Chezzymann
Member
But this new one has trump up 23 points
POLL UPDATE
2016 Florida Republican Presidential Primary - Trump 43%, Rubio 20% (FOX News 3/5-3/8)
Population 813 Likely Voters - Republican
Margin of Error ±3.5 percentage points
Polling Method Live Phone
1) 2016 Florida Republican Presidential Primary
Asked of 813 likely voters - republican
Ted Cruz (R) 16%
Don't Know 6%
John Kasich (R) 10%
None of the above 1%
Marco Rubio (R) 20%
Donald Trump (R) 43%
Other 5%
POLL UPDATE
2016 Florida Republican Presidential Primary - Trump 43%, Rubio 20% (FOX News 3/5-3/8)
Population 813 Likely Voters - Republican
Margin of Error ±3.5 percentage points
Polling Method Live Phone
1) 2016 Florida Republican Presidential Primary
Asked of 813 likely voters - republican
Ted Cruz (R) 16%
Don't Know 6%
John Kasich (R) 10%
None of the above 1%
Marco Rubio (R) 20%
Donald Trump (R) 43%
Other 5%
Leona Lewis
Banned
"The poll was taken March 2 to 5, preceding Rubio’s losses Saturday night in Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine. On Sunday, he won the Puerto Rico GOP primary, but placed third or fourth Tuesday night in Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan and Mississippi. Those losses could be a factor for voters when deciding whether Rubio’s candidacy is viable."
Not sure how useful this poll is after Rubio's embarrassing showing this week and the deluge of derisive headlines that followed.
Look at the date. That's more like it.
- Status