[Terez]

Dumbledude, on 12 February 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

I didn't get to see it, but I did watch a clip of Bernie bringing up Kissinger and it was righteous.

It was by far the best moment of the debate, no matter who your candidate was. If young people don't know who Kissinger is, they need to learn. I think I made four tweets during the NH debate; one of them was for Hillary's Kissinger name-drop. I just couldn't believe how out of touch she was. And last night when she was making notes during Bernie's Kissinger push-back, did you see the look on her face? She thought he was digging himself into some kind of hole! Good lord, the best thing about last night's debate is that all the news orgs are posting articles explaining Kissinger.

Dumbledude, on 12 February 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

Also, this came out today, and it's really lovely:

I watched this yesterday, it it really, really took me by surprise how powerful it was. I knew the music was effective from the beginning, but I didn't expect where they went with it. The combination of the music and the narrative was genius. Bernie found some damn good producers, that's for sure.

[bubba]

Quote

Now I am wondering if you were one of those "maybe Trump, maybe Bernie" voters.

The only way I would vote for Trump is if Bernie get screwed out of the race.....and then it would be just to say "fuck you" to the country and the world.

[Terez]

Bubba, on 12 February 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

Quote

Now I am wondering if you were one of those "maybe Trump, maybe Bernie" voters.

The only way I would vote for Trump is if Bernie get screwed out of the race.....and then it would be just to say "fuck you" to the country and the world.

Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to vote for Trump, but sometimes I think I would be tempted to stay home. I think Hillary would be bad for SCOTUS, but Trump probably worse. It's hard to know with Trump sometimes.

I do however find the populism aspect of this race very interesting. In a way, Obama ran on a very populist message. But he also (perhaps paradoxically) ran on a message of compromise, and he was working with a Congress that was already fully compromised across both parties by the power of capital. So he compromised with that system more than he compromised with Republicans generally. I don't think many progressives were surprised because he did take a lot of money from Wall St.; Hillary was absolutely right about that. She's bringing that up as a wedge issue because Democrats generally and black voters in particular are very loyal to Obama, but I think that many black voters who admire Obama, especially younger ones, are absolutely aware of the fact that Obama was compromised by Wall St. money. Some of them know Eric Holder was a Wall St. lawyer and that his Justice Department has been incredibly weak on financial crimes.

I like Obama, and I think few men of such integrity have ever been in the White House. He's not perfect, but he's definitely above the pack. Part of him knew that compromise was the wrong thing to do—he wrote about this in his second book—but eventually he had to come to grips with the fact that he wasn't really in a position to challenge the status quo, not by any failing of his own but because of the way US politics has always been defined by race, and because of the money that was being spent against him in 2008. And I think progressives like Bernie and Cornel West sometimes lose sight of that, and the reason they lose sight of it is because if Obama were a different person, he might have pushed harder. And that's true—Obama's tendency is to be an appeaser—but in my opinion it was always really obvious that pushing harder wasn't ever going to work with him; the old white identity politics wouldn't allow it, especially in the way it manifests in Congress at the modern peak of party purity and cross-party corruption.

Andrea Mitchell is on MSNBC. Chyron: COOL THE BERN. Andrea: (gleeful voice) Hillary used last night's debate to give Bernie a reality check.

Apparently Hillary still hasn't cashed her reality check.

(Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan. She and Hillary are friends. Most establishment journalists reacted similarly, though.)

[QuickTidal]

I'm curious if there is a consensus, from those of you who are American, on whether Sanders (if he gets in over Hilary) has a big enough overall tent to beat Trump (if he gets in on the other side)? Like I think Bernie stands for great things, but I wonder if he's got enough oomph behind him to win. (I actually have no real idea, so I'm curious about it from those of you I know who follow this stuff closely)

Reason I ask this: I say this as someone who lived for a fair number of years with Rob Ford as my city mayor, because we were outweighed by the votes of idiots just like Ford in larger outlying areas of our "megacity" (Sidebar: Toronto was once just downtown Toronto...but in the 90's was amalgamated with a number of outlying cities and communities with BIG populations who generally sway the votes away from downtown inhabitants now with sheer numbers). I never in a million years thought that such a blatant rich/racist/sexist idiot would get voted in as mayor...and then it happened.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 12 February 2016 - 05:11 PM

[Terez]

As I said before, I think Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary does because both Trump and Bernie are reflective of the overall desire for populist politics in this country. Bernie has a chance of recruiting Trump voters; we saw that in New Hampshire. Hillary has zero chance of taking would-be Trump voters. Nada. People like Trump because no one owns him; that's a good message against Hillary in a populist year; it's a terrible message against Bernie when he's worth about 300k and you're a billionaire. Yes, Trump has the power of xenophobia on his side; that counts with a lot of his voters, but not all of them.

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 12 February 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

As I said before, I think Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary does because both Trump and Bernie are reflective of the overall desire for populist politics in this country. Bernie has a chance of recruiting Trump voters; we saw that in New Hampshire. Hillary has zero chance of taking would-be Trump voters. Nada. People like Trump because no one owns him; that's a good message against Hillary in a populist year; it's a terrible message against Bernie when he's worth about 300k and you're a billionaire. Yes, Trump has the power of xenophobia on his side; that counts with a lot of his voters, but not all of them.

Cool. Thanks for the answer. I did not know that.

[Terez]

Maybe someone else has different ideas. But we appear to have scared away all the Hillary people, so...

The two upcoming contests in South Carolina and Nevada have been kind of black boxes polling-wise; there haven't been any new polls in those states since well before Iowa, so the polls didn't register the Bernie surge. We just got a new one out of Nevada, though:

http://projects.five...ada-democratic/

It shows a dead heat between Bernie and Hillary, whereas Hillary was averaging about a 20-point lead back in December. 538 weighted the poll at 0.42, which suggests a wide MOE and perhaps less-than-stellar methodology, despite a good sample of likely voters. Also, Nevada is a caucus state, so polling is not all that predictive anyway because turnout is low. They also have same-day registration in Nevada.

The Democratic Party in Nevada is about 30-40% non-white, which is a big change from Iowa and New Hampshire. It's more Latino than black, though, so it's hard to say how Hillary's "firewall" is holding up.

[worry]

It may be worth noting that Bernie was a two-term small city mayor, so he has executive experience as well as legislative. That might seem like small potatoes compared to the presidency, but I bring it up because (at least for a long time, if not so much now), he's been portrayed as such a kook. The fact is he has TONS of experience, in many ways much more than Hillary.

It's kind of funny too since he's technically much more the "career politician" than she is, but their reputations suggest the reverse. I'm not even sure if it can be used as an epithet against Bernie, since as a matter of "ownership" (as Terez points out) he's clearly way less beholden to the interest groups populists are disgusted with. I am genuinely curious to see if Trump's 'outsider' status has any function against Bernie.

[HoosierDaddy]

Sorry to piss in the cooler guys, but Bernie has a ton of work to do if he wants the nomination. And even FURTHER to go if he wants the presidency.

He's a self-described (as far as I can tell, incorrectly) Socialist. Strike 1.
He appeals to millenials, who are far more likely to have trouble voting or flaking. Strike 2.
His most vocal supporters actively turn off non-decided voters (BernieBros). Strike 3.
He desperately needs minority support, but that is owned by the Clintons and I see no reason it will change with elite black voices writing opinion pieces. Normal people don't read them. In the clubhouse.

I like Bernie's policies, but they are: naive, unreachable, and not fleshed out.

But, have at it. If it gets to Indiana I'll have a choice to make because it'll be an actual race. I don't expect it to get to Indiana.

[worry]

Strike 1, he says Democratic Socialist. Strike 2, fair enough.

Strike 3: Bros are awful no matter who they support, and Bernie doesn't have the majority of them let alone a monopoly. It strikes me so much as a convergence of 4channers doing their thing along with a prewritten narrative that was always, always going to come up no matter what the reality is:

http://www.ibtimes.c...t-clash-2300707

If anything, the self-appointed "HillaryMen" are the same brand of dirty-work political hacks you see in every election.

[worry]

As far as his ideals, one of the best things Terez has ever said in this thread is Bernie's rhetoric is about the goalposts. He's very clearly not making "campaign promises" in the traditional sense, he's drawing a line in the sand of what it means to be progressive (action, goals) rather than just using the label (talk). Like, how can you recognize that Dems have been ceding to the right for decades now, the "middle" has shifted rightward, and not see Sanders's positions as a very modest step toward rebalance. He's not even suggesting anything radical. I'm not saying I would begrudge the Obama status quo that Hillary represents, in contrast to the GOP alternative. But nothing about Sanders's campaign is even remotely outlandish. It's mundane center left, and only seems weird because we've been drowning in GOP policy so long even a standard lifeboat looks like Stephen Spielberg's yacht. It ain't that crazy.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 12 February 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

Sorry to piss in the cooler guys, but Bernie has a ton of work to do if he wants the nomination. And even FURTHER to go if he wants the presidency.

He's a self-described (as far as I can tell, incorrectly) Socialist. Strike 1.

Hillary being a corrupt borderline neocon is a worse strike IMO.

HoosierDaddy, on 12 February 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

He appeals to millenials, who are far more likely to have trouble voting or flaking. Strike 2.

He appeals to voters under 50, according to polling, and doesn't do bad with voters over 50 either. His strongest support is among the young, but they're turning out for caucuses and primaries. The apathy among the older voters should be worrying to Hillary supporters.

HoosierDaddy, on 12 February 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

His most vocal supporters actively turn off non-decided voters (BernieBros). Strike 3.

Hillary turns them off all by her ownself. There are no Berniebros in Bernie's actual staff and surrogate team, but Hillary's trolls are surrogates. People need to understand that trolls are on the internet. Some of them are even paid trolls.

HoosierDaddy, on 12 February 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

He desperately needs minority support, but that is owned by the Clintons and I see no reason it will change with elite black voices writing opinion pieces. Normal people don't read them. In the clubhouse.

We're learning that minority voters very much resent the implication that they're owned by anyone. The Establishment is a different story because the Clintons have a reputation for being vicious with those who cross them. As someone on Vox pointed out recently, there's a long list of people who were shut out of Hillary's State Dept. because they supported Obama.

HoosierDaddy, on 12 February 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

I like Bernie's policies, but they are: naive, unreachable, and not fleshed out.

Which policies are those?

[Terez]

Dumbledude, on 12 February 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

As far as his ideals, one of the best things Terez has ever said in this thread is Bernie's rhetoric is about the goalposts. He's very clearly not making "campaign promises" in the traditional sense, he's drawing a line in the sand of what it means to be progressive (action, goals) rather than just using the label (talk). Like, how can you recognize that Dems have been ceding to the right for decades now, the "middle" has shifted rightward, and not see Sanders's positions as a very modest step toward rebalance. He's not even suggesting anything radical. I'm not saying I would begrudge the Obama status quo that Hillary represents, in contrast to the GOP alternative. But nothing about Sanders's campaign is even remotely outlandish. It's mundane center left, and only seems weird because we've been drowning in GOP policy so long even a standard lifeboat looks like Stephen Spielberg's yacht. It ain't that crazy.

Good example: the minimum wage. If we ask for 15, we might get 12. If we ask for 12, we might get 10. If we're lucky.

[Terez]

Jim Gilmore is officially out! Thank the gods he's alive!

The GOP is officially down to 6. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and Carson, roughly in order of polling averages. Carson will be gone after SC; that much is clear. It remains to be seen whether the Establishment choices will be differentiated enough in SC and NV to cull their lane.

[Terez]

Dumbleworrydude wins that one, by the way. I thought Carson would be gone before Iowa.

[amphibian]

I'm Green Party registered, so I have no direct say in the Democratic primary despite voting Democratic in presidential elections.

However, it does not seem right to me to criticize Sanders for being vastly inferior to H. Clinton because he doesn't have as much direct policy/crafting experience. We are finishing up two terms of a President who had even less policy experience than Sanders. Obama likely did a better job than the Clintons would have with just about everything. He was by no means perfect or even living up to many of his campaign promises, but what we saw there (and with several other presidencies) is that direct policy/crafting experience is not as crucial an issue with the electoral or with the governance of the country.

The more crucial issue is how good the selection of helpers/workhorses is. GWB chose Cheney and a ton of neo-cons. Half the world suffered for it. Obama chose a bunch of Wall Street people for Finance and AG and went easy on Wall Street, but picked better people for Sec of State and Sec of Defense than we've had in a while. Holder and Lynch also came down on Ferguson (finally) and a few other issues, which is a big move for the feds.

The next President could get 1 to 4 Supreme Court appointments, with one possible being Scalia and another possible being Kennedy. That is SCOTUS altering. This depends on variables of personal health, retirement calls, and how many terms the next President gets (if one, Kennedy might try to stick it out longer).

[EmperorMagus]

Why Superdelegates Don't matter

I'll admit I'm following the U.S elections circus like a junkie, and it's arguably more fun than porn.
I felt like HC's clothing choice in last nights debate was her campaign trying to make her look younger than she is, and thus increase her appeal to young people, but I dunno. I felt like she looked ridiculous.

[amphibian]

The non-monolithic nature of the black minority vote is something that's going to be closely looked at in this election. Obama managed to peel off enough to win the primary, but did the Clintons put them back together enough now there is not another black candidate against them? Does Sanders' more fleshed out platform re: race/justice/class pull enough groups over?

This is probably the most fascinating election cycle in terms of pure demographics and uncertainty that we've seen in 20 years. One of the sub-dramas is how badly the loud conservative political pundits are predicting election turnouts a few days before. They're getting old and they might be hooked into the non-performing poll companies instead of the correctly performing poll companies. I think a sea change in conservative political punditry is about to happen and we'll see idiots like Kristol shuffle off into irrelevance.

[worry]

Terez, on 13 February 2016 - 02:28 AM, said:

Dumbleworrydude wins that one, by the way. I thought Carson would be gone before Iowa.

That's cuz you're thinking rationally. Some of these guys you have to think megalomaniacally.

[Andorion]

Since i have been skimming this thread off and on for a few months, my impression is that gradually everyone is realizing they really don't know what's going to happen