Presidential Election 2016

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1719
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 9th, 2016, 11:49 am

trigonalmayhem wrote:The centrist faction within the Democratic party has drifted too far to the right and too deeply into corporate pockets for the progressive faction to stomach any longer.
That's what the Nader-ites said in 1999 too. Boy did that work out terribly.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4740
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby David Greene » February 9th, 2016, 12:03 pm

Sanders is not Nader.

While I will vote for the D nominee whomever it may be, I understand the position of people who won't. I have to admit that a very small part of me does want to see the party flounder. The Republicans spent decades in the wilderness figuring out worldview and messaging and all of the things that made them so effective for the last 30 years. That effectiveness is waning but they got a hell of a lot done in the process.

Sometimes reality has to smack you in the face to get you to change your stagnant ways.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2414
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Didier » February 9th, 2016, 12:15 pm

trigonalmayhem wrote:If they shut Bernie and the youth out with their slimy do-anything-to-win tactics they are quite literally destroying the future of the party.
So is the reasonable solution then for Hillary to give up and let Bernie win?

nate
Landmark Center
Posts: 296
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 2:01 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby nate » February 9th, 2016, 12:22 pm

David Greene wrote:Sanders is not Nader.

While I will vote for the D nominee whomever it may be, I understand the position of people who won't. I have to admit that a very small part of me does want to see the party flounder. The Republicans spent decades in the wilderness figuring out worldview and messaging and all of the things that made them so effective for the last 30 years. That effectiveness is waning but they got a hell of a lot done in the process.

Sometimes reality has to smack you in the face to get you to change your stagnant ways.
If a Republican president wasn't able to undo of all President Obama's accomplishments, tip the balance of power in the Supreme Court for at least a generation, and blunder us into another foreign war, then maybe it would be nice for the Dems to spend some time in the wilderness.

As is, this election is far, far, far too important for Dems to do anything but fall into line behind Hilary if she is the nominee. JMO.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4740
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby David Greene » February 9th, 2016, 12:31 pm

Oh I completely agree. That's why I said "very small part."

Snelbian
Rice Park
Posts: 463
Joined: March 2nd, 2013, 9:03 pm
Location: Merriam Park

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Snelbian » February 9th, 2016, 12:46 pm

As someone on the fence, every time I open this thread I'm more and more put off the Sanders movement. I'm sure he's a great guy, but as a rule I don't find the Savioir Who Musn't Be Questioned approach (Hi Tiller!) appealing.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1719
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 9th, 2016, 12:47 pm

David Greene wrote:Sanders is not Nader.

While I will vote for the D nominee whomever it may be, I understand the position of people who won't.
I don't, and I can't see the difference between someone who support Bernie refusing to vote for Hillary as the nominee and someone who voted for Nader in a state where it might have mattered.

Both sure look like a failure recognize real policy differences that matter.
Sometimes reality has to smack you in the face to get you to change your stagnant ways.
Okay, but the GOP will do very real damage in the interim.

Snelbian
Rice Park
Posts: 463
Joined: March 2nd, 2013, 9:03 pm
Location: Merriam Park

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Snelbian » February 9th, 2016, 12:52 pm

The most bizarre thing here isn't that Clinton supporters think Sanders fans are secondary, or that Sanders fans think she is playing the sexism card. It's that we're talking about a fairly liberal candidate with positions almost identical to Sanders as too conservative. It's baffling, unless you consider "burn the banks down" to be the single issue of this election of any import.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4740
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby David Greene » February 9th, 2016, 1:15 pm

Snelbian wrote:The most bizarre thing here isn't that Clinton supporters think Sanders fans are secondary, or that Sanders fans think she is playing the sexism card. It's that we're talking about a fairly liberal candidate with positions almost identical to Sanders as too conservative. It's baffling, unless you consider "burn the banks down" to be the single issue of this election of any import.
This is a good article that covers exactly that:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10930018/as ... on-sanders

tl;dr version: There's a difference between ideology and theory of change.

That said, I'm not sure their positions are "almost identical." The problem Clinton has is that the only thing I hear from her campaign is "electable!" and "sexism!" and "realism!" That may be unfair but it is what I hear. I don't know exactly what her goals are, policy-wise and how her approach to change will actually lead to the change I want.

Sanders has a similar problem. I don't know how he's going to accomplish the change he wants. But at least I know the change he wants aligns pretty well with the change I want.

Snelbian
Rice Park
Posts: 463
Joined: March 2nd, 2013, 9:03 pm
Location: Merriam Park

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Snelbian » February 9th, 2016, 1:20 pm

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hill ... s-liberal/
http://presidential-candidates.insidego ... ry-Clinton

Honestly, other than doubts about his ability to produce results, the biggest thing making me unsure of Sanders is his more conservative gun stance (and the bullshit insulting NRA mental illness talking point he harps on so hard). The NRA rates him higher than 33 Democratic senators and two Republicans. Otherwise it's mostly "how fast do we change things".
Last edited by Snelbian on February 9th, 2016, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4268
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby grant1simons2 » February 9th, 2016, 1:23 pm

I just really don't feel comfortable with a candidate (Clinton) who has accepted money from a prison lobbyist group

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodm ... 91868.html

Fossil fuel execs and lobbyists

http://grist.org/climate-energy/hillary ... interests/

and Goldman Sachs of course..

Snelbian
Rice Park
Posts: 463
Joined: March 2nd, 2013, 9:03 pm
Location: Merriam Park

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Snelbian » February 9th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Demonstrate an instance of money affecting her senatorial career.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4268
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby grant1simons2 » February 9th, 2016, 1:36 pm


EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2265
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » February 9th, 2016, 1:46 pm

grant1simons2 wrote:Elizabeth Warren already did

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ptcy-vote/
that article wrote:In the end, however, Clinton was against the bankruptcy bill at the moment it really counted — final passage in Congress. (In all, 26 Democrats opposed the bill and 18 supported it, along with all 55 Republicans.) So for all the money the financial interests contributed to Clinton’s campaign, she did not give them the support they desired.

Snelbian
Rice Park
Posts: 463
Joined: March 2nd, 2013, 9:03 pm
Location: Merriam Park

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Snelbian » February 9th, 2016, 2:18 pm

grant1simons2 wrote:Elizabeth Warren already did

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ptcy-vote/
Yes. Poorly, inaccurately, and glazing over nuance the year before any actual vote to pass the legislation. As that very article details. If that's the best reason to question Clinton's financial/legislative split you've got, I'd assume you also believe the Sanders presidency will be horribly sexist because of that weird rape thought piece he wrote 40 years ago.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 846
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 9th, 2016, 4:09 pm

amiller92 wrote:
Tiller wrote:The Clintons, however, seem to be willing to stoop to any lows in their thirst for power.
I don't think we can have a productive conversation if you think "pointing out that sexism is a thing, even within the democratic party" is "stooping to any lows."
"Stooping to any lows" is using racist dog whistles against Obama, and then using him to shield yourself from criticism 8 years later.

"Stooping to any lows" is being willing to say anything in order to get elected.

"Stooping to any lows" is Hillary's robust relationship with Wallstreet being "negative campaigning", while flagrant lies like "Bernie wants to dismantle Medicare" aren't.

"Stooping to any lows" means adapting the mantle of conservatism to gain and hold power, and causing massive amounts of harm by pushing for and enacting conservative policies.

If you are really this bad at conflating arguments, and incapable of recognizing degree, then I agree with you, there can be no productive conversation.
amiller92 wrote:
No one is saying that nothing is happening, but keep on beating up that strawman.
It can't both be "just the internet" and be happening. The claim is not that there are some bad actors in the Bernie crowd. It's that there are more bad actors in the Bernie crowd than in general.
It absolutely can. The internet exists, and is happening constantly. The problem is where you say "there are more bad actors in the Bernie crowd than in general", which is unverifiable. Bernie supporters make up a disproportionate amount of the internet. Bernie supporters skew young and passionate. Further, criticism of Bernie will also disproportionatly draw shit from Bernie supporters. It's just how things work. This isn't rocket science.

We aren't hearing as much about the shit from Hillary supporters because Bernie isn't campaigning on it, there aren't as many Hillary supporters online, because for many people having more support among african americans means Hillary supporters can't be racist, and because for many people being a female candidate means her supporters can't be sexist.
amiller92 wrote:
a good portion of that bullshit comes from conservatives
That's a mighty quick whipsaw from "strawman" to "it's not happening."
Do you know what "portion" means? Do you deny that conservatives online are ruthlessly against Hillary? Do you even spend much time seeing this shit online? In that Intercept piece, as an example, they looked at an article (I think it may have been the article that originated the "BernieBro" meme), one of the two examples given of "BernieBros" was a conservative, and the other was a women who wasn't being sexist.

Part of your problem, and Hillary's problem, is that they either can't or don't differentiate between Progressives and Conservatives, because that makes the whole "Us vs Them" thing more difficult, and would require nuance.

This is why the term "BernieBot" is so rampantly used: to imply that the progressives that support Bernie are nothing but conservative sock puppets.

This is why a narrative of progressive sexism and racism is frequently used: because it is so much easier to lump progressives in with conservatives and to try and discredit them that way, than to respond to criticism. (and before you jump in to say
"B-BUT that shows there's tons of racism/sexism!", no, and I doubt you ever see how this is used/occurs. I see it frequently.)

It's why Clinton says things like Bernie "attacked planned parenthood": directly relating an offhand comment to systemic and vicious attempts by the republican party to destroy planned parenthood and subjugate women.

It's why she talks about Bernie "dismantling Obamacare", because she wants to directly lump Bernie in with republicans trying to deprive millions of people of healthcare.

Hellooo, Snelbian. Here's the "rape piece" Snelbian mentions:
Image

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1719
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 9th, 2016, 4:40 pm

Tiller wrote:The problem is where you say "there are more bad actors in the Bernie crowd than in general", which is unverifiable.
Right. And in the face of that uncertainty, you (and others) choose not to take the the women and people of color who are telling you this at their word. Which is a thing with a long history. It has names you don't like.
Bernie supporters skew young and passionate. Further, criticism of Bernie will also disproportionatly draw shit from Bernie supporters. It's just how things work. This isn't rocket science.
Congrats, you've just made the argument for why Bernie Bros are probably a thing.
In that Intercept piece, as an example, they looked at an article (I think it may have been the article that originated the "BernieBro" meme), one of the two examples given of "BernieBros" was a conservative, and the other was a women who wasn't being sexist.
Yeah, that's one reason why that piece was crap. Greenwald responded to one of several articles, picking the low-hanging fruit to respond to while ignoring the others. That's a completely normal thing to do for people arguing on the internet, but its pretty disingenuous for someone who was arguing that Team Hillary was being disingenuous.

BTW, the "Bernie Bro" concept predates that article Greenwald responded to by quite some time, if I recall from the googling of the issue.
Part of your problem, and Hillary's problem, is that they either can't or don't differentiate between Progressives and Conservatives, because that makes the whole "Us vs Them" thing more difficult, and would require nuance.
That's funny because what I'm hearing from you is that Hillary is them, thus anything about gender in the campaign is unfair campaign tactics, be it Albright saying women should support women or people who support Hillary mentioning that Bernie Bros are a thing. I don't think "of course it's dirty politics, it's Hillary" is an unfair very brief summary of Greenwald's point.
This is why the term "BernieBot" is so rampantly used: to imply that the progressives that support Bernie are nothing but conservative sock puppets.
I guess you could think that if you think that sexists are inherently conservative. I don't (other than on that one dimension, obviously).
It's why Clinton says things like Bernie "attacked planned parenthood": directly relating an offhand comment to systemic and vicious attempts by the republican party to destroy planned parenthood and subjugate women.

It's why she talks about Bernie "dismantling Obamacare", because she wants to directly lump Bernie in with republicans trying to deprive millions of people of healthcare.
Campaigning is a brutal business.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 846
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 9th, 2016, 5:07 pm

Snelbian wrote:Demonstrate an instance of money affecting her senatorial career.
This is almost a red herring, because it isn't just as simple of a case of exchanging X amount of money for X vote (and if it did happen, I'd take it Hillary is smart enough to keep that off the record). The problem is more subtle than that, but we know it exists because government only responds to the demands of the wealthy and powerful. The American public as a whole fundamentally doesn't think that is what should be happening.

It just isn't logically consistent that someone can be for reforming campaign financing, yet not find heavy reliance on our current broken system to be problematic. If SuperPACS are bad, how is having one not bad? It's just not logically consistent. We as democrats criticize Republicans for this for good reason, but we can't just turn a complete blind eye to our own.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-st ... chy-2014-4

The study was only from 1981 to 2002, so things have likely gotten worse recently with lessened restrictions on money in politics. You can't just dismiss the corrupting power of money because there's no "smoking gun", because who one associates with matters. Who has access to the president matters. Advisors and cabinet members matter.

This video of Biden talking about this last fall is pretty good and spot on.



As for some of the other discussion, the concept of a "Revolution of Rising Expectations" is relevant since there seems to be confusion over this.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/atty ... tions.html

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2265
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » February 9th, 2016, 5:17 pm

Tiller wrote:It just isn't logically consistent that someone can be for reforming campaign financing, yet not find heavy reliance on our current broken system to be problematic. If SuperPACS are bad, how is having one not bad? It's just not logically consistent. We as democrats criticize Republicans for this for good reason, but we can't just turn a complete blind eye to our own.
This is an excessively simplistic way of looking at the world. Democrats (Hillary included) may well want to live in a world with publicly-funded elections and strict restrictions on political spending, and they may strive toward that world with all their might, but they must campaign in the world that is, not the one they wish to see. For Clinton or any other Democratic political candidate to foreswear PAC spending while her opponent does not is to operate at a significant material disadvantage.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 846
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 9th, 2016, 6:29 pm

amiller92 wrote:
Tiller wrote:The problem is where you say "there are more bad actors in the Bernie crowd than in general", which is unverifiable.
Right. And in the face of that uncertainty, you (and others) choose not to take the the women and people of color who are telling you this at their word.
This isn't a valid argument here. You're just picking and choosing which women and people of color you listen to based on ideology, and then trying to use this non sequitur to defend your point, using them as a shield.
amiller92 wrote:
Bernie supporters skew young and passionate. Further, criticism of Bernie will also disproportionatly draw shit from Bernie supporters. It's just how things work. This isn't rocket science.
Congrats, you've just made the argument for why Bernie Bros are probably a thing.
You still can't just skip from "they exist" to "big problem that we will mention at every campaign stop", nor from "they exist" to "they are a disproportionate problem", which you continue to equivocate.
amiller92 wrote:
In that Intercept piece, as an example, they looked at an article (I think it may have been the article that originated the "BernieBro" meme), one of the two examples given of "BernieBros" was a conservative, and the other was a women who wasn't being sexist.
Yeah, that's one reason why that piece was crap. Greenwald responded to one of several articles, picking the low-hanging fruit to respond to while ignoring the others. That's a completely normal thing to do for people arguing on the internet, but its pretty disingenuous for someone who was arguing that Team Hillary was being disingenuous.
I went back and checked the Intercept article, and it said it was one of the most widely cited, which would be valid metric to choose by (though I can't independently confirm whether or not that's the case). There's also the fact that the headline is pretty flagrant, and that the poor evidence which is presented certainly doesn't support the conclusion of a "sexist mob".

Pieces like that are low hanging fruit to discredit, but they also do the most damage when unchallenged, and are the most flagrantly wrong, which is why they should be put down. If the only thing at issue was "does the BernieBro exist in real life?" there would be no argument, because that isn't a controversial statement. If you say something like "Bernie's supporters are a massive roaming hate mob online, driving women from their homes!", that is a pretty severe accusation.
amiller92 wrote:
Part of your problem, and Hillary's problem, is that they either can't or don't differentiate between Progressives and Conservatives, because that makes the whole "Us vs Them" thing more difficult, and would require nuance.
That's funny because what I'm hearing from you is that Hillary is them, thus anything about gender in the campaign is unfair campaign tactics, be it Albright saying women should support women or people who support Hillary mentioning that Bernie Bros are a thing. I don't think "of course it's dirty politics, it's Hillary" is an unfair very brief summary of Greenwald's point.
There is an argument to be had on how distinct Hillary is/isn't from conservatism. The dirty politics thing is an important point because it can matter for the general election.
amiller92 wrote:
This is why the term "BernieBot" is so rampantly used: to imply that the progressives that support Bernie are nothing but conservative sock puppets.
I guess you could think that if you think that sexists are inherently conservative. I don't (other than on that one dimension, obviously).
Part of that problem is that it is used as an all-purpose response to dissenting opinions (and reducing people to "bots" is also dehumanizing).
amiller92 wrote:Campaigning is a brutal business.
It's telling that Bernie just has to bring up Hillary's record and connections, while Hillary has to lie and distort. It's a good sign for that often mentioned "vetting" though that they can't find anything. I'm curious as to what we'd see if Bernie does better than expected/things tighten in South Carolina.

And to EOst: I agree, as that is a valid point to make, though working in the current system does still have corrupting effects, even if there isn't an easy alternative. Though that is why I find Clinton's messaging to be baffling. She should have been hammering the point home that she's just working in the system to change it, but her focus has been more on that there is no corrupting influence. Bernie's unorthodox method of fundraising is probably a large part of this, as it draws a strong contrast between the two, while it isn't something Hillary can control. You could say it's a lose-lose proposition for Clinton as long as Bernie's fundraising is a plank of his campaign, since whether or not she responds/objects it's effective.


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest