| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hitler also liked dogs, and he made the trains run on time.No comment to the first, but the second is actually false to my knowledge.
To be more specific, a) it is Mussolini who was credited with making the trains run on time, not Hitler, and b) I think the historical consensus is that Mussolini actually failed to make the trains run on time and that what patchy improvements did occur were largely the result of projects begun by the previous government.
Mussolini was better at propaganda than he was at trains, in other words.
There's a lot of illegitimate criticisms of Clinton, sadly this will also plague her presidency as well, but I'm not sure Clinton was helped by her advocates when they claimed that Sanders had Bernie bros who were only voting against her because she was female. That's calling wolf and when real sexism pops up people are less likely to believe it.If only she were a better cheerleader and smiled more.She's expected to smile more because she's a woman. Of course if she did, then she'd be "too fluffy". It's called a "can't win" scenario.
Which advocates are you talking about, exactly? The analysis I heard described the Sanders voters who didn't switch affiliation after the convention as too extreme to vote for any candidate who doesn't self-identify as a socialist, rather than sexist because they were willing to vote democrat only so long as the candidate was male. Different perspective north of the border?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And here I agree with you. What I'm saying is right now I'm not sure I want to see Clinton win. I want to see Trump lose, but those are not quite the same things. I would like to see Jill Stein win but that's highly unlikely to happen.
Unlikely isn't a strong enough term. If I were to use something in astronomical terms, it's unlikely that we'll be hit by a city busting asteroid in the near future, but it is within the realm of conceivable possibility.
It is also conceivably possible that a duplicate of you will spring into existence at any moment. However the probability of that event occuring is so low that it is not likely to happen within the lifetime of the universe.
Jill Stein's victory is closer to the second category of "unlikely".
By minority voters, I'm guessing you guys mean "black."
As I recall, Bernie did surprisingly well with Latinx and Native Americans. I don't remember any articles about how Asian Americans voted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm saying is right now I'm not sure I want to see Clinton win. I want to see Trump lose, but those are not quite the same things. I would like to see Jill Stein win but that's highly unlikely to happen.
... and that's where this attitude of yours becomes selfish and irresponsible (along with a lot of other negative adjectives I could employ). Not all less-than-perfect outcomes are equally bad, and you have a responsibility to make responsible choices among those as well.
As an analogy, if I'm cooking in the kitchen, and a grease fire erupts on my stove, that's a bad thing. I can think of at least three options:
* I let the grease fire continue to burn, possibly destroying the whole house.
* I grab the fire extinguisher and put the fire out, but I'll probably spray suppressant foam all over my kitchen and make a horrible mess. And I'd be putting myself at some non-trivial risk of burns.
* The fire might just go out by itself without doing any significant damage and my doing anything.
My preferred option would be for the third, but that's "highly unlikely" to happen. Not nearly as unlikely as a Jill Stein electoral victory, but still unlikely. But if I refuse to use the fire extinguisher on the grounds that that I have an option I prefer, I'm making it much more likely that the first option will happen.
So, rank your preferences. And tell me which is more important to you, that your house not burn down, or that you not get fire suppressant foam all over your counter?
There are lots of other analogies I could use. Look at your retirement plans. I think all of us agree that our ideal outcome would be hitting the PowerBall, winning hundreds of millions of dollars, and never having to think about money again. But there are at least two more options. One of them is to save up against one's frail dotage, and the other is to expect to live in a refrigerator box and eat cat food when no longer able to work.
I'd prefer the PowerBall, thank you. But I really prefer a house to a refrigerator box, and so I'm putting the bulk of my money in a savings plan, not in lottery tickets.
Ranked in preference:
1) Hillary wins. With four to eight more years of neoliberalism, austerity and overseas adventures and an uptick in labor actions and black protests, we, the far left, have a chance to get, if not as big as we were in the thirties, at least as big as we were in the sixties. Vive le Galt!
2) Jill wins. It would be sad, though, to watch her be a sellout like the European Greens and Socialists.
3) Gary wins.
4) Donald wins.
In 3 and 4, we'll see the protest movements swell, but most of the liberals will just be urging us to vote Democrats, and then we'll be back where we started.
What I'm saying is right now I'm not sure I want to see Clinton win. I want to see Trump lose, but those are not quite the same things. I would like to see Jill Stein win but that's highly unlikely to happen.... and that's where this attitude of yours becomes selfish and irresponsible (along with a lot of other negative adjectives I could employ). Not all less-than-perfect outcomes are equally bad, and you have a responsibility to make responsible choices among those as well.
As an example, if I'm cooking in the kitchen, and a grease fire erupts on my stove, that's a bad thing. I can think of at least three options:
* I let the grease fire continue to burn, possibly destroying the whole house.
* I grab the fire extinguisher and put the fire out, but I'll probably spray suppressant foam all over my kitchen and make a horrible mess. And I'd be putting myself at some non-trivial risk of burns.
* The fire might just go out by itself without doing any significant damage and my doing anything.My preferred option would be for the third, but that's "highly unlikely" to happen. Not nearly as unlikely as a Jill Stein electoral victory, but still unlikely. But if I refuse to use the fire extinguisher on the grounds that that I have an option I prefer, I'm making it much more likely that the first option will happen.
So, rank your preferences. And tell me which is more important to you, that your house not burn down, or that you not get fire suppressant foam all over your counter?
Here's the countercharge to this. Democrats have been spending decades using this argument to block progressives with the "us or the Republicans" argument. Clinton 1.0 was a master of this strategy with his policy of triangulation. Realistically while Trump may blow a major head of steam, the moneybags who run both parties will do major containment, probably through Pence on how much real damage that Trump can do. And maybe if the Democrats lose big because they did not nominate a Sanders instead of a Clinton just might be chastised enough to rethink their approach.
Ranked in preference:
1) Hillary wins.
2) Jill wins.
3) Gary wins.
4) Donald wins.
That's roughly my order of preference as well, although I note that there are a number of third party candidates that you left out whose chance of winnings are not measurably less than Gary's....
But that's a factor that one should (responsibly) take into account. Because even if this is my preference list:
1) Someone else wins.
2) Hillary wins.
3) Donald wins.
... I have to take into account that the likelihood of the first event is roughly one in two hundred, and any rational analysis needs to remember and deal with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the countercharge to this. Democrats have been spending decades using this argument to block progressives with the "us or the Republicans" argument.As an example, if I'm cooking in the kitchen, and a grease fire erupts on my stove, that's a bad thing. I can think of at least three options:
* I let the grease fire continue to burn, possibly destroying the whole house.
* I grab the fire extinguisher and put the fire out, but I'll probably spray suppressant foam all over my kitchen and make a horrible mess. And I'd be putting myself at some non-trivial risk of burns.
* The fire might just go out by itself without doing any significant damage and my doing anything.My preferred option would be for the third, but that's "highly unlikely" to happen. Not nearly as unlikely as a Jill Stein electoral victory, but still unlikely. But if I refuse to use the fire extinguisher on the grounds that that I have an option I prefer, I'm making it much more likely that the first option will happen.
So, rank your preferences. And tell me which is more important to you, that your house not burn down, or that you not get fire suppressant foam all over your counter?
Yeah, they've also been spending decades using the argument that the Earth is millions of years old to block attempts by Republicans to cripple science education in the United States. And they've been spending decades using the argument that blacks are actually human to support the elimination of legalized discrimination. They've also been spending decades using the argument that poverty sucks to drum up support for government programs such as Social Security.
When your argument is actually correct, you might as well use it.
Here's the countercharge to this. Democrats have been spending decades using this argument to block progressives with the "us or the Republicans" argument.As an example, if I'm cooking in the kitchen, and a grease fire erupts on my stove, that's a bad thing. I can think of at least three options:
* I let the grease fire continue to burn, possibly destroying the whole house.
* I grab the fire extinguisher and put the fire out, but I'll probably spray suppressant foam all over my kitchen and make a horrible mess. And I'd be putting myself at some non-trivial risk of burns.
* The fire might just go out by itself without doing any significant damage and my doing anything.My preferred option would be for the third, but that's "highly unlikely" to happen. Not nearly as unlikely as a Jill Stein electoral victory, but still unlikely. But if I refuse to use the fire extinguisher on the grounds that that I have an option I prefer, I'm making it much more likely that the first option will happen.
So, rank your preferences. And tell me which is more important to you, that your house not burn down, or that you not get fire suppressant foam all over your counter?
Yeah, they've also been spending decades using the argument that the Earth is millions of years old to block attempts by Republicans to cripple science education in the United States. And they've been spending decades using the argument that blacks are actually human to support the elimination of legalized discrimination. They've also been spending decades using the argument that poverty sucks to drum up support for government programs such as Social Security.When your argument is actually correct, you might as well use it.
Keep in mind that George "Segregation Now! Segregation Forever!" Wallace was a Democrat. And that until recently, when the Tea Party became the mainstream, mainstream Republicans weren't trying to impose the Gospel on science education... because it's bad business.
Running Education Subtheme
Not about No. 2 in Massachusetts, nor Wal-Mart's drive against public education (which Hillary helped out with back in the early eighties), but looks worth reading nonetheless:
New book: Obama’s Education Department and Gates Foundation were closer than you thought
In 1981, Arkansas passed a law that Creationism be given equal time to evolution in science classes. Does that predate the Tea Party at all?
It wasn't a one-off either. Louisiana passed a similar law in 1981.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that George "Segregation Now! Segregation Forever!" Wallace was a Democrat. And that until recently, when the Tea Party became the mainstream, mainstream Republicans weren't trying to impose the Gospel on science education... because it's bad business.Yeah, they've also been spending decades using the argument that the Earth is millions of years old to block attempts by Republicans to cripple science education in the United States. And they've been spending decades using the argument that blacks are actually human to support the elimination of legalized discrimination. They've also been spending decades using the argument that poverty sucks to drum up support for government programs such as Social Security.
When your argument is actually correct, you might as well use it.
You know when you have to reach back to before the realignment after the Civil Rights Movement to attack Democrats you've lost, right?
He was a Dixiecrat. The "Solid South" segregationist Democrat voter base he was appealing to switched to the Republican party.
Yeah, and IIRC, the Clintons tried to woo them back with their own Southern Strategy of executing mentally disabled black men, dismantling welfare and calling black youth "super predators."
|
I think you're missing my other statements where I said I'd vote for Clinton if I were in a swing state. I believe in voting strategically but in that case that doesn't mean I actually like the candidate I vote for. If I'm in a blue state like California there's no reason why I shouldn't vote for who I like.What I'm saying is right now I'm not sure I want to see Clinton win. I want to see Trump lose, but those are not quite the same things. I would like to see Jill Stein win but that's highly unlikely to happen.... and that's where this attitude of yours becomes selfish and irresponsible
Maybe the US system is indeed 100% foolproof against unanticipated majority swings, but you should be aware that most people being 100% sure that their vote had no real impact is the reason why Brexit won and why we had a far right vs right second turn of the 2002 French presidential election
Never assume that your vote does not matter because it will be too late for regrets when the voting is done and you have to live with the results
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Democrats had a candidate that could crush Trump by over 10%.
But instead they choose one of the most neoliberal candidates in history, who had a whopping disapproval rating. The superdelegates picked her before the race began, and Bernie never had a fair shot. The deck was stacked for Hillary by the elites of the party, and the party chairman had to resign in disgrace on the eve of the convention.
The rulership of the democratic party created this whole mess, and now it's the voters fault for not picking her? Are you kidding me? If stopping Trump is so important, why the hell did the party pick Clinton, when Sanders was crushing Trump in every poll? Why did the party pick the second least popular candidate in history? Why did the super delegates even vote before the race began?
The Democratic Party screwed this one up badly, and rather then assigning blame on the voters who know Hillary is a crap candidate, they should be bending over backwards to appeal to voters who had more sense then the party elites. Instead they are saying the same thing about third parties they said toward Bernie voters - the deck is stacked in Hillary's favor already, just go along.
Voting for Hillary is rewarding the DNC's bad behavior. I don't see why anyone would expect better candidates, if they rig the system to nominate the second least popular candidate in history, and then have an unrepentant, entitled attitude about it.
PS A "plank in the party platform" is about the most meaningless thing I could think of, but they couldn't even come out against the TPP trade deal. Yay Neoliberialism!
EDIT: Seriously, how can you read about the leaked DNC emails, and still have any respect for these clowns?
“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God,” wrote Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the committee. “He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.”
Mr. Marshall added in a second email: “It’s these Jesus thing.” Ms. Dacey wrote back, in capital letters: “AMEN.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's something the DNC knew when they bent the rules in her favor.
The superdelegates picked her before the race began, and Bernie never had a fair shot.
Even Sanders said that she won fair and square.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
that's something the DNC knew when they bent the rules in her favor.Even Sanders said that she won fair and square.
I still find it hilarious people think he wasn't given a fair chance when he literally only joined the party to run for president and then left the party when he didn't won.
But so how it is the party that owns him... what exactly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's something the DNC knew when they bent the rules in her favor.The superdelegates picked her before the race began, and Bernie never had a fair shot.Even Sanders said that she won fair and square.
Meh. That isn't what he said during the race, and even the NYTimes says, "The breach of the Democratic committee’s emails, made public on Friday by WikiLeaks, offered undeniable evidence of what Mr. Sanders’s supporters had complained about for much of the senator’s contentious primary contest with Mrs. Clinton: that the party was effectively an arm of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign."
If you read those articles and still think the system is, "fair and square", I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.EDIT: "WHAT'S TRUE: Sen. Bernie Sanders told reporters that when he returns to the Senate, it will be as an Independent; Sanders was elected as an Independent.
WHAT'S FALSE: Sanders did not formally "leave" the Democratic Party, nor did he do so in protest. "
that's something the DNC knew when they bent the rules in her favor.Even Sanders said that she won fair and square.I still find it hilarious people think he wasn't given a fair chance when he literally only joined the party to run for president and then left the party when he didn't won.
But so how it is the party that owns him... what exactly?
Technically its true, but Sanders has been a Democrat in all but name. He caucuses with the party, and pretty much has voted with them on all issues save one gun bill.
Ralph Nader has made the charge that the only reason Sanders ran at all was to get to a more advantageous working relationship with them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) General election matchups before the primaries end are nearly meaningless. Bernie hadn't faced any serious attacks. Even Clinton wasn't really bashing him, because she didn't need to and because she wanted his supporters.
Yup. See previously referenced "backup quarterback effect."
2) The superdelegates supported her - that's what superdelegates do.
Yup. While one could make an argument that superdelegates per se are a bad idea, the Republican party wished, this cycle, that they had a set of superdelegates in hand (who might have been able to shift the nomination momentum away from Trump). The pendulum seems to swing back and forth on that one; when the electorate picks a bad candidate, the rules are changed to give the party elders more say. When the party elders pick a bad candidate, the rules are changed to give the electorate more say.
But the rules for this contest were set well in advance; it's not like no one understood them. Or if, for some reason, Sanders didn't understand the rules, it's not because he was somehow kept in the dark and unaware....
Had she stumbled badly and Sanders come close to winning the pledged delegate race, we would have seen that shift. Had he actually won, they would have backed him. That's how superdelegates work. We saw that in 2008 - Clinton had the advantage in superdelegates, though not as strong a one as she did in 2016, but they shifted away from her to back Obama as he won primaries.
Of course, Obama also ran a much better and more compelling campaign than Clinton, which is why he actually won the nomination....
3) Technically, they didn't actually vote until the convention. They merely endorsed or supported their preferred candidate. Why? Because that's how these things work. Because there are advantages to being an early supporter of the new President? Because Clinton had spent the last 8 years making personal connections with politicians? Because they actually thought she'd be a better president and maybe even a better candidate?Because Hillary actually won the primaries. More delegates. More votes. Far more support from within the Democratic Party - not elites, but registered Democratic voters.
Yes, that's something else to consider. Clinton won the primaries, based in significant part on her ability to mobilize minority voters, and she won convincingly by any measure you care to suggest.
She won 55% of the popular vote (to 43% for Sanders).
She won 34 states/territories (to Sanders' 23).
She won 2842 delegates (to Sanders' 1865).
She won 2220 "earned" delegates (to Sanders' 1831).
Or, more laconically, she won.
Because Hillary actually won the primaries. More delegates. More votes. Far more support from within the Democratic Party - not elites, but registered Democratic voters.
This. Over and over again.
Similarly, Trump won the primaries — more delegates, more votes, more support from registered Republican voters.
This is the match-up the primaries yielded because the nominees got more votes than their opponents.
1) Those polls seemed pretty straight forward to me. I recall you saying that the pundits made a mistake when they ignored the polls showing Trump beating other republicans. Now the polls are nearly meaningless?
2) The Super delegates stacked the deck in Hillary's favor from the beginning. Indeed that is what Superdelegates do. That isn't very democratic is it? Then again, the DNC is an organization that exists to serve the interests of it's members, so democracy is not a requirement. 3) Indeed, they could have unstacked the deck at a later time. I'm not claiming that it could not be un-rigged, simply that it was rigged for the time period that was needed in advance of Hillary being nominated at the convention. Hillary probably did spend years getting other political elites on board. Everyone loves political elites deciding their candidates!
Because Hillary actually won the primaries. More delegates. More votes. Far more support from within the Democratic Party - not elites, but registered Democratic voters.
Indeed she did win, but with OVERWHELMING support from the elites. Could she have done it without that support? It would be nice if we could have found that out...
EDIT:
She won 55% of the popular vote (to 43% for Sanders).
That is a stark contrast to the 570.5 superdelegates she got compared to Sanders 44.5
1) Those polls seemed pretty straight forward to me. I recall you saying that the pundits made a mistake when they ignored the polls showing Trump beating other republicans. Now the polls are nearly meaningless?
Yes, the general election polls are/were nearly meaningless during primary season (while the primary election polls are/were very meaningful indeed....)