Plus, the notion of a Democrat wanting to keep CU in place is ridiculous, the Koch brothers are hard R and so are most of the other billionaires that exploit that system.
I see CU as similar to the filibuster. Both sides hate it when it's used against them, but neither side wants to really commit to getting rid of it, because then they won't be able to use it when they might need it.
Both of the democratic candidates have said they are against it, one of whom has made it a key point to their potential SCOTUS picks (which is probably the most important thing for a president without control of the House). The narrative that Democrats want CU is bullshit, especially when it's far more likely to lose them house seats than it is to gain them the presidency.
Its that horseshit both sides are bad because one side doesn't handicap itself that Republicans have been flogging since at least 2008.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Plus, the notion of a Democrat wanting to keep CU in place is ridiculous, the Koch brothers are hard R and so are most of the other billionaires that exploit that system.
I see CU as similar to the filibuster. Both sides hate it when it's used against them, but neither side wants to really commit to getting rid of it, because then they won't be able to use it when they might need it.
Both of the democratic candidates have said they are against it, one of whom has made it a key point to their potential SCOTUS picks (which is probably the most important thing for a president without control of the House). The narrative that Democrats want CU is bullshit, especially when it's far more likely to lose them house seats than it is to gain them the presidency.
Its that horseshit both sides are bad because one side doesn't handicap itself that Republicans have been flogging since at least 2008.
plus i think folks forget that Hillary likely has a personal reason to dislike CU, as ultimately it was a hit piece on her that started this whole thing.
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
And barely so. With no one having any experience with the kind of campaign that Obama ran. She's very cognizant of the caucus weakness this time.
Barrack was gaining pretty steadily in the polls in the months leading up to Iowa, but even more critically, he was also winning endorsements.
Weapons in Syria I've already mentioned, and Libya ended up being about as successful an intervention as anyone could've expected, with very little cost to us. She's not above using the military as a tool, but for her it's one that should be used sparingly. There's no indication that she would do anything like a Bush-style full scale invasion of Iran or Syria, barring extraordinary conditions.
That very much depends on what you were expecting. Libya was sold as a limited intervention to prevent an immanent humanitarian catastrophe, namely the wholesale slaughter of the population of Benghazi by government forces. However, it became immediate apparent that once bombs started dropping, the US wasn't going to be satisfied with stopping the advance of government forces until a negotiated settlement could be found; rather, US forces were going annihilate everything loyal to Qaddafi that moved until rebels could not only defend themselves, but they could walk over the ashes of Tripoli and establish their own government. Unfortunately, no one thought to check whether they would be able to do any such thing once they 'won.' The direct result is that Libya has gone from enjoying relatively high standards of living under Qaddafi (fifth highest per capita income in Africa, free health care, free public education, public education compulsory for both sexes) to now being a nightmare failed state--not only is this visible in the European context as Italians try to cope with the massive wave of boat people that Libya no longer even tries to secure its borders against, but if one actually attends to Libya itself, which the Western press mostly doesn't, one sees that the country has dissolved into an ongoing multi-faction civil war including, charmingly, two distinct parliaments neither of which recognizes the other (and which also features, of course, armed support from outside parties like Egypt and Turkey). Turns out bombing an existing civil society entirely out of existence has repercussions. Libya is a nightmare and an object lesson in the consequences of hawkish foreign policy.
I am fond of Hillary in many ways. Libya, however, should be an albatross around her (and Obama's) necks. I can't say I saw it coming; I was full of cheery optimism at the time. But they, unlike me, had a responsibility to know better.
You're assuming that the alternative was a wonderful happy Libya. Do you have any evidence that if the US and Europe hadn't gotten involved, that Gaddafi would've reestablished power, stabilized Libya, and wouldn't have gone on a genocidal rampage against the groups who rose up against him?
All indications are that Libya as a modern, developed country was fucked as soon as the rebellion got underway. The new civil war didn't start because of American bombs, it started because the lack of a secular(ish) dictator allowed for the democratic rise of Islamist forces, just like we've seen in a handful of other Middle Eastern countries. The intervention was about protecting civilians (it did) and giving people a choice (it did). What happened years later isn't on Hillary.
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
And barely so. With no one having any experience with the kind of campaign that Obama ran. She's very cognizant of the caucus weakness this time.
Barrack was gaining pretty steadily in the polls in the months leading up to Iowa, but even more critically, he was also winning endorsements.
Do people really vote based on endorsements? Has this ever been studied? Personally, I can't imagine something mattering less in my decision.
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
And barely so. With no one having any experience with the kind of campaign that Obama ran. She's very cognizant of the caucus weakness this time.
Barrack was gaining pretty steadily in the polls in the months leading up to Iowa, but even more critically, he was also winning endorsements.
Do people really vote based on endorsements? Has this ever been studied? Personally, I can't imagine something mattering less in my decision.
Some people do. "I don't really know about this character, but I my congressman likes him and I trust my congressman." I don't think it'll make that much of a difference with Hillary, people already know her fairly well (or think they do), but it does deny endorsements for the other candidates.
Also it helps with fundraising and support. Hillary might not have had a great team set up and ready to go in, say, Virginia. But Governor McAuliffe certainly does, and having the support of his team will help her in that state.
Weapons in Syria I've already mentioned, and Libya ended up being about as successful an intervention as anyone could've expected, with very little cost to us. She's not above using the military as a tool, but for her it's one that should be used sparingly. There's no indication that she would do anything like a Bush-style full scale invasion of Iran or Syria, barring extraordinary conditions.
That very much depends on what you were expecting. Libya was sold as a limited intervention to prevent an immanent humanitarian catastrophe, namely the wholesale slaughter of the population of Benghazi by government forces. However, it became immediate apparent that once bombs started dropping, the US wasn't going to be satisfied with stopping the advance of government forces until a negotiated settlement could be found; rather, US forces were going annihilate everything loyal to Qaddafi that moved until rebels could not only defend themselves, but they could walk over the ashes of Tripoli and establish their own government. Unfortunately, no one thought to check whether they would be able to do any such thing once they 'won.' The direct result is that Libya has gone from enjoying relatively high standards of living under Qaddafi (fifth highest per capita income in Africa, free health care, free public education, public education compulsory for both sexes) to now being a nightmare failed state--not only is this visible in the European context as Italians try to cope with the massive wave of boat people that Libya no longer even tries to secure its borders against, but if one actually attends to Libya itself, which the Western press mostly doesn't, one sees that the country has dissolved into an ongoing multi-faction civil war including, charmingly, two distinct parliaments neither of which recognizes the other (and which also features, of course, armed support from outside parties like Egypt and Turkey). Turns out bombing an existing civil society entirely out of existence has repercussions. Libya is a nightmare and an object lesson in the consequences of hawkish foreign policy.
I am fond of Hillary in many ways. Libya, however, should be an albatross around her (and Obama's) necks. I can't say I saw it coming; I was full of cheery optimism at the time. But they, unlike me, had a responsibility to know better.
You're assuming that the alternative was a wonderful happy Libya. Do you have any evidence that if the US and Europe hadn't gotten involved, that Gaddafi would've reestablished power, stabilized Libya, and wouldn't have gone on a genocidal rampage against the groups who rose up against him?
All indications are that Libya as a modern, developed country was fucked as soon as the rebellion got underway. The new civil war didn't start because of American bombs, it started because the lack of a secular(ish) dictator allowed for the democratic rise of Islamist forces, just like we've seen in a handful of other Middle Eastern countries. The intervention was about protecting civilians (it did) and giving people a choice (it did). What happened years later isn't on Hillary.
People see Libya as a failure? We did exactly what a powerful democratic country should do abroad, "protect civilians and give the people a choice." We didn't do what we normally do, set up a dictator that is in our pocket. We have a 100 year history of that not working so in this case it was a damned if you do damned if you don't situation that I thought the US handled better than most foreign crisis in the last 50 years.
Don't endorsements also factor into the allocation of delegates somehow?
Yes the scary "SUPER DELEGATES!!!" That also swing the race outside of the primaries. Though I can't remember if the dems got rid of that like the republicans did.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Don't endorsements also factor into the allocation of delegates somehow?
Yes the scary "SUPER DELEGATES!!!" That also swing the race outside of the primaries. Though I can't remember if the dems got rid of that like the republicans did.
I don't think so, that was a key to Obama winning the last primaries.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Don't endorsements also factor into the allocation of delegates somehow?
Yes the scary "SUPER DELEGATES!!!" That also swing the race outside of the primaries. Though I can't remember if the dems got rid of that like the republicans did.
Why aren't super delegates terrible? They are literally antidemocratic. I think every state should have open primaries, personally, and there should be no unallocated delegates.
Don't endorsements also factor into the allocation of delegates somehow?
Yes the scary "SUPER DELEGATES!!!" That also swing the race outside of the primaries. Though I can't remember if the dems got rid of that like the republicans did.
Why aren't super delegates terrible? They are literally antidemocratic. I think every state should have open primaries, personally, and there should be no unallocated delegates.
That might have made Hillary's chances for winning last time higher, actually. Rather than Obama the Dems may have got her in the general against McCain.
Don't endorsements also factor into the allocation of delegates somehow?
Yes the scary "SUPER DELEGATES!!!" That also swing the race outside of the primaries. Though I can't remember if the dems got rid of that like the republicans did.
Why aren't super delegates terrible? They are literally antidemocratic. I think every state should have open primaries, personally, and there should be no unallocated delegates.
That might have made Hillary's chances for winning last time higher, actually. Rather than Obama the Dems may have got her in the general against McCain.
Final Superdelegate count was 478 for Obama to 246½ for Clinton (estimated, obviously), but if memory serves, the overwhelming majority of those didn't actually pledge until towards the end and there was concerns that they could swing it towards being a close race again and potentially have it wait for the National Convention, as early on most of those who declared were for Clinton, not Obama. That didn't end up being the case, obviously.
Now, if skfm's "I want primaries to be all delegates" was a winner-take-all thing instead of proportional representation, then yeah - Clinton probably would have ended up winning.
Don't endorsements also factor into the allocation of delegates somehow?
Yes the scary "SUPER DELEGATES!!!" That also swing the race outside of the primaries. Though I can't remember if the dems got rid of that like the republicans did.
Why aren't super delegates terrible? They are literally antidemocratic. I think every state should have open primaries, personally, and there should be no unallocated delegates.
That might have made Hillary's chances for winning last time higher, actually. Rather than Obama the Dems may have got her in the general against McCain.
Final Superdelegate count was 478 for Obama to 246½ for Clinton (estimated, obviously), but if memory serves, the overwhelming majority of those didn't actually pledge until towards the end and there was concerns that they could swing it towards being a close race again and potentially have it wait for the National Convention, as early on most of those who declared were for Clinton, not Obama. That didn't end up being the case, obviously.
Now, if skfm's "I want primaries to be all delegates" was a winner-take-all thing instead of proportional representation, then yeah - Clinton probably would have ended up winning.
I like proportional rep. I hate the electoral college and the winner take all nature of the states in the general.
Don't endorsements also factor into the allocation of delegates somehow?
Yes the scary "SUPER DELEGATES!!!" That also swing the race outside of the primaries. Though I can't remember if the dems got rid of that like the republicans did.
Why aren't super delegates terrible? They are literally antidemocratic. I think every state should have open primaries, personally, and there should be no unallocated delegates.
Because we're not talking about electing an individual to a government position, but a political party choosing it's standard-bearer. Honestly, I think there are First Amendment questions with regard to open primaries with regards to freedom of association (and that goes double for jungle "primaries" (which actually aren't even primaries at all!))
Grey Lady is sounding the charge to shut down the Benghazi panel. What's sad is that it took an outright admission of what everyone already knew for this to come about.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
I'm gonna disagree there. And it isn't stealing if Hillary wins fairly.
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
Hillary won the popular vote in '08. Enough superdelegates voted for Obama that they could've been the deciding vote. And yet people didn't see them voting for the popular vote loser as a "procedural tactic". It's not a perfect comparison, those superdelegates switched votes because Obama was becoming the consensus victor anyway, but it's close enough.
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
I'm gonna disagree there. And it isn't stealing if Hillary wins fairly.
I dunno, if somehow we ended up in a scenario where Hillary won via those sorts of shenanigans, I'd seriously consider not voting for her in the general--even though I'll gladly vote for her if she wins normally (which will likely be the case), which already isn't the case for a certain segment of Bernie's support.
So he might have a point, whether you want to consider it 'stealing' or 'a fair win'.
That said, I think that outcome's pretty unlikely. I can't imagine the party would be dumb enough to slap the left that hard in the face.
Kamar on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
Hillary won the popular vote in '08. Enough superdelegates voted for Obama that they could've been the deciding vote. And yet people didn't see them voting for the popular vote loser as a "procedural tactic". It's not a perfect comparison, those superdelegates switched votes because Obama was becoming the consensus victor anyway, but it's close enough.
Popular vote, but not based on states with proportionate delegates, right? I thought he won without the super delegates (i.e., ignore them completely).
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
Hillary won the popular vote in '08. Enough superdelegates voted for Obama that they could've been the deciding vote. And yet people didn't see them voting for the popular vote loser as a "procedural tactic". It's not a perfect comparison, those superdelegates switched votes because Obama was becoming the consensus victor anyway, but it's close enough.
The superdelegates voting never happened/mattered because Obama ran unopposed by the time they voted. Clinton conceded and endorsed Obama on June 7th. Obama surpassed the number of delegates (excluding superdelegates) needed for a majority on June 3rd. The Convention wasn't until August. Once Clinton conceded, superdelegate votes were "locked" in terms of estimates, but they didn't matter any more. They COULD have given it to Clinton, but Clinton herself was the one who avoided that problem by conceding (and good for her for doing so).
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
I'm gonna disagree there. And it isn't stealing if Hillary wins fairly.
I dunno, if somehow we ended up in a scenario where Hillary won via those sorts of shenanigans, I'd seriously consider not voting for her in the general--even though I'll gladly vote for her if she wins normally (which will likely be the case), which already isn't the case for a certain segment of Bernie's support.
So he might have a point, whether you want to consider it 'stealing' or 'a fair win'.
That said, I think that outcome's pretty unlikely. I can't imagine the party would be dumb enough to slap the left that hard in the face.
What shenanigans? She isn't breaking the rules, she's playing by them. That's why it's pertinent for candidates running in the primary to understand the rules and know how to use them to their advantage. The last time she failed to do that, she lost to a candidate who did. His name was Barack Obama. Bernie has no excuses not to know how the game is played.
That isn't a slap, it's politics. If Bernie had the political strength to win this, good for him, but if he doesn't he, or any other left wing candidate, needs to learn why he failed so it isn't repeated.
Yeah, I'm firmly in the Sanders camp, but a lot of people seem to be conflating wanting him to win with what's necessary for him to actually win. The game was set, and known, for a long time. Those are the rules.
And honestly, there's something to be said for party insiders having a greater say in the nominee. *glances sidelong over at Trump on the Republican side*
Hell, there's an even better reason for party insiders to have a larger say that they can swing until the convention: there's a lot of time between the primaries and the actual nomination. Let's say that, I dunno, someone finds a magical email from Clinton where she tells Obama to use his time machine to go back and cause 9/11, and (due to proportional representation and an amazing job at the debates and inertia from winning NH handily and getting close in Iowa) Sanders has a decent number of delegates - less than half, but still pretty close. Superdelegates have the ability to go "shit, Obama shouldn't have used his time machine at Clinton's suggestion to cause 9/11, we can't have that person be our nominee" and can swap their votes to prevent a catastrophe in the general election.
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
I'm gonna disagree there. And it isn't stealing if Hillary wins fairly.
I dunno, if somehow we ended up in a scenario where Hillary won via those sorts of shenanigans, I'd seriously consider not voting for her in the general--even though I'll gladly vote for her if she wins normally (which will likely be the case), which already isn't the case for a certain segment of Bernie's support.
So he might have a point, whether you want to consider it 'stealing' or 'a fair win'.
That said, I think that outcome's pretty unlikely. I can't imagine the party would be dumb enough to slap the left that hard in the face.
What shenanigans? She isn't breaking the rules, she's playing by them. That's why it's pertinent for candidates running in the primary to understand the rules and know how to use them to their advantage. The last time she failed to do that, she lost to a candidate who did. His name was Barack Obama. Bernie has no excuses not to know how the game is played.
That isn't a slap, it's politics. If Bernie had the political strength to win this, good for him, but if he doesn't he, or any other left wing candidate, needs to learn why he failed so it isn't repeated.
It's not something to learn. If the people choose Bernie Sanders and then party insiders give Hillary the nod instead, how is that not a defeat for democracy? It is literally the elites choosing out leaders without our consent.
If Sanders wins the delegate count, not including the superdelegates, I would expect Clinton would do LITERALLY WHAT SHE DID LAST TIME and concede and support Sanders.
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
I'm gonna disagree there. And it isn't stealing if Hillary wins fairly.
I dunno, if somehow we ended up in a scenario where Hillary won via those sorts of shenanigans, I'd seriously consider not voting for her in the general--even though I'll gladly vote for her if she wins normally (which will likely be the case), which already isn't the case for a certain segment of Bernie's support.
So he might have a point, whether you want to consider it 'stealing' or 'a fair win'.
That said, I think that outcome's pretty unlikely. I can't imagine the party would be dumb enough to slap the left that hard in the face.
What shenanigans? She isn't breaking the rules, she's playing by them. That's why it's pertinent for candidates running in the primary to understand the rules and know how to use them to their advantage. The last time she failed to do that, she lost to a candidate who did. His name was Barack Obama. Bernie has no excuses not to know how the game is played.
That isn't a slap, it's politics. If Bernie had the political strength to win this, good for him, but if he doesn't he, or any other left wing candidate, needs to learn why he failed so it isn't repeated.
It's not something to learn. If the people choose Bernie Sanders and then party insiders give Hillary the nod instead, how is that not a defeat for democracy? It is literally the elites choosing out leaders without our consent.
That isn't what's happening, though. The Democratic primaries are made a certain way, and it up to Bernie to figure out how to use them to his advantage to win it. He can't win it by votes alone, that was never an option. Hillary learnt this the hard way in 2008. Obama didn't steal the election away from her. That isn't stealing, and it isn't his - not yet, anyway. For something to be stolen implied he had it in the first place, and right now he doesn't. If he can't figure this out it isn't a glowing endorsement for how he'd run the country, which is a lot more complicated than these primaries. This is why it's important for Bernie to have an "in" with party insiders, too. He's running for the Democratic nominee, he needs allies in the party who will back him.
edit: This isn't about voters consent, this is how it's operated for years. Voters are one part of winning Democratic primaries, the delegates are another - candidates need both to win. This is what he signed up for.
edit: The GOP have their own rules for primaries too, if a candidate can't use them to their advantage or fails to understand the process they will lose. RE: Ron Paul.
Harry Dresden on
+4
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
I'm gonna disagree there. And it isn't stealing if Hillary wins fairly.
I dunno, if somehow we ended up in a scenario where Hillary won via those sorts of shenanigans, I'd seriously consider not voting for her in the general--even though I'll gladly vote for her if she wins normally (which will likely be the case), which already isn't the case for a certain segment of Bernie's support.
So he might have a point, whether you want to consider it 'stealing' or 'a fair win'.
That said, I think that outcome's pretty unlikely. I can't imagine the party would be dumb enough to slap the left that hard in the face.
What shenanigans? She isn't breaking the rules, she's playing by them. That's why it's pertinent for candidates running in the primary to understand the rules and know how to use them to their advantage. The last time she failed to do that, she lost to a candidate who did. His name was Barack Obama. Bernie has no excuses not to know how the game is played.
That isn't a slap, it's politics. If Bernie had the political strength to win this, good for him, but if he doesn't he, or any other left wing candidate, needs to learn why he failed so it isn't repeated.
It's not something to learn. If the people choose Bernie Sanders and then party insiders give Hillary the nod instead, how is that not a defeat for democracy? It is literally the elites choosing out leaders without our consent.
That isn't what's happening, though. The Democratic primaries are made a certain way, and it up to Bernie to figure out how to use them to his advantage to win it. He can't win it by votes alone, that was never an option. Hillary learnt this the hard way in 2008. Obama didn't steal the election away from her. That isn't stealing, and it isn't his - not yet, anyway. For something to be stolen implied he had it in the first place, and right now he doesn't. If he can't figure this out it isn't a glowing endorsement for how he'd run the country, which is a lot more complicated than these primaries. This is why it's important for Bernie to have an "in" with party insiders, too. He's running for the Democratic nominee, he needs allies in the party who will back him.
edit: This isn't about voters consent, this is how it's operated for years. Voters are one part of winning Democratic primaries, the delegates are another - candidates need both to win. This is what he signed up for.
I'm not saying he has anything. He is way behind Clinton. All I am saying is that if Sanders ends up with more delegates and then the super delegates go Hillary's way and give her the nomination, that would seem dishonest. The party basically slapping down the upstart with the I next to his name.
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
Hillary won the popular vote in '08. Enough superdelegates voted for Obama that they could've been the deciding vote. And yet people didn't see them voting for the popular vote loser as a "procedural tactic". It's not a perfect comparison, those superdelegates switched votes because Obama was becoming the consensus victor anyway, but it's close enough.
Popular vote, but not based on states with proportionate delegates, right? I thought he won without the super delegates (i.e., ignore them completely).
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
Hillary won the popular vote in '08. Enough superdelegates voted for Obama that they could've been the deciding vote. And yet people didn't see them voting for the popular vote loser as a "procedural tactic". It's not a perfect comparison, those superdelegates switched votes because Obama was becoming the consensus victor anyway, but it's close enough.
The superdelegates voting never happened/mattered because Obama ran unopposed by the time they voted. Clinton conceded and endorsed Obama on June 7th. Obama surpassed the number of delegates (excluding superdelegates) needed for a majority on June 3rd. The Convention wasn't until August. Once Clinton conceded, superdelegate votes were "locked" in terms of estimates, but they didn't matter any more. They COULD have given it to Clinton, but Clinton herself was the one who avoided that problem by conceding (and good for her for doing so).
My point is that SKFM is complaining about the superdelegates being undemocratic. In '08, the closest thing to a democratic victor was Clinton; she won the popular vote. Obama won for reasons like doing well in caucus states (where delegate allotment has nothing to do with the popular vote). There was also a theoretical option of the superdelegates getting together, deciding that Hillary should win because she won the popular vote, and giving her the nomination. In this hypothetical scenario, I am more than willing to bet Hillary would've stuck it out instead of dropping.
But they didn't. They voted for the popular vote loser and no one cared enough for it to cost Obama the general election. US presidential elections have never been geared towards giving victory to the popular vote winner, general or primary.
Likewise, in the hypothetical case of Bernie winning the popular vote in a close match in '16 (and it'd have to be reasonably close for superdelegates to make a difference), superdelegates would have the power to shift victory to Hillary, the popular vote loser. As I said in my last post, it's not a perfect comparison because Obama was becoming the consensus candidate (ie, he had the non-superdelegate vote victory). But it's close enough and there's no way in hell people are going to say "Boy howdy, that Bernie Sanders fellow would've won the primary by a handful of votes if the Vermont governor had cast his superdelegate for Bernie instead of Hillary. I like her, but I think I'm going to stay home in the general in protest of this unfair system."
Compound that with the fact that candidates need a majority, not just a plurality, so there's not really such a thing as "without the superdelegate votes".
Superdelegates might be interesting in this election.
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
I'm gonna disagree there. And it isn't stealing if Hillary wins fairly.
I dunno, if somehow we ended up in a scenario where Hillary won via those sorts of shenanigans, I'd seriously consider not voting for her in the general--even though I'll gladly vote for her if she wins normally (which will likely be the case), which already isn't the case for a certain segment of Bernie's support.
So he might have a point, whether you want to consider it 'stealing' or 'a fair win'.
That said, I think that outcome's pretty unlikely. I can't imagine the party would be dumb enough to slap the left that hard in the face.
What shenanigans? She isn't breaking the rules, she's playing by them. That's why it's pertinent for candidates running in the primary to understand the rules and know how to use them to their advantage. The last time she failed to do that, she lost to a candidate who did. His name was Barack Obama. Bernie has no excuses not to know how the game is played.
That isn't a slap, it's politics. If Bernie had the political strength to win this, good for him, but if he doesn't he, or any other left wing candidate, needs to learn why he failed so it isn't repeated.
It's not something to learn. If the people choose Bernie Sanders and then party insiders give Hillary the nod instead, how is that not a defeat for democracy? It is literally the elites choosing out leaders without our consent.
That isn't what's happening, though. The Democratic primaries are made a certain way, and it up to Bernie to figure out how to use them to his advantage to win it. He can't win it by votes alone, that was never an option. Hillary learnt this the hard way in 2008. Obama didn't steal the election away from her. That isn't stealing, and it isn't his - not yet, anyway. For something to be stolen implied he had it in the first place, and right now he doesn't. If he can't figure this out it isn't a glowing endorsement for how he'd run the country, which is a lot more complicated than these primaries. This is why it's important for Bernie to have an "in" with party insiders, too. He's running for the Democratic nominee, he needs allies in the party who will back him.
edit: This isn't about voters consent, this is how it's operated for years. Voters are one part of winning Democratic primaries, the delegates are another - candidates need both to win. This is what he signed up for.
I'm not saying he has anything. He is way behind Clinton. All I am saying is that if Sanders ends up with more delegates and then the super delegates go Hillary's way and give her the nomination, that would seem dishonest. The party basically slapping down the upstart with the I next to his name.
That's not dishonest, it's the rules. You're also getting too ahead of yourself, the primaries just started. Stealing implies Bernie does have the nomination, he hasn't got it. To win Bernie must use the rules better than she does, that's politics.
edit: Winning elections isn't just about counting votes, there are rules every politician needs to abide. They fail to do this and they'll lose.
edit: Discounting Hillary vote wise isn't good, either. She's a very popular candidate the Dems have, meanwhile Bernie is an unknown. He's going to have fight for those votes.
While bringing up the rules, worth noting that Hillary's campaign in '08 allegedly didn't know that delegates are awarded proportionally. They ended up poorly focusing their resources poorly, which (if true) likely cost her the election.
While bringing up the rules, worth noting that Hillary's campaign in '08 allegedly didn't know that delegates are awarded proportionally. They ended up poorly focusing their resources poorly, which (if true) likely cost her the election.
Posts
Its that horseshit both sides are bad because one side doesn't handicap itself that Republicans have been flogging since at least 2008.
pleasepaypreacher.net
plus i think folks forget that Hillary likely has a personal reason to dislike CU, as ultimately it was a hit piece on her that started this whole thing.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
And barely so. With no one having any experience with the kind of campaign that Obama ran. She's very cognizant of the caucus weakness this time.
Barrack was gaining pretty steadily in the polls in the months leading up to Iowa, but even more critically, he was also winning endorsements.
You're assuming that the alternative was a wonderful happy Libya. Do you have any evidence that if the US and Europe hadn't gotten involved, that Gaddafi would've reestablished power, stabilized Libya, and wouldn't have gone on a genocidal rampage against the groups who rose up against him?
All indications are that Libya as a modern, developed country was fucked as soon as the rebellion got underway. The new civil war didn't start because of American bombs, it started because the lack of a secular(ish) dictator allowed for the democratic rise of Islamist forces, just like we've seen in a handful of other Middle Eastern countries. The intervention was about protecting civilians (it did) and giving people a choice (it did). What happened years later isn't on Hillary.
CLINTON IN TROUBLE!!!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Looks like it's Rubio's turn.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Do people really vote based on endorsements? Has this ever been studied? Personally, I can't imagine something mattering less in my decision.
Some people do. "I don't really know about this character, but I my congressman likes him and I trust my congressman." I don't think it'll make that much of a difference with Hillary, people already know her fairly well (or think they do), but it does deny endorsements for the other candidates.
Also it helps with fundraising and support. Hillary might not have had a great team set up and ready to go in, say, Virginia. But Governor McAuliffe certainly does, and having the support of his team will help her in that state.
People see Libya as a failure? We did exactly what a powerful democratic country should do abroad, "protect civilians and give the people a choice." We didn't do what we normally do, set up a dictator that is in our pocket. We have a 100 year history of that not working so in this case it was a damned if you do damned if you don't situation that I thought the US handled better than most foreign crisis in the last 50 years.
Yes the scary "SUPER DELEGATES!!!" That also swing the race outside of the primaries. Though I can't remember if the dems got rid of that like the republicans did.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think so, that was a key to Obama winning the last primaries.
Why aren't super delegates terrible? They are literally antidemocratic. I think every state should have open primaries, personally, and there should be no unallocated delegates.
That might have made Hillary's chances for winning last time higher, actually. Rather than Obama the Dems may have got her in the general against McCain.
Final Superdelegate count was 478 for Obama to 246½ for Clinton (estimated, obviously), but if memory serves, the overwhelming majority of those didn't actually pledge until towards the end and there was concerns that they could swing it towards being a close race again and potentially have it wait for the National Convention, as early on most of those who declared were for Clinton, not Obama. That didn't end up being the case, obviously.
Now, if skfm's "I want primaries to be all delegates" was a winner-take-all thing instead of proportional representation, then yeah - Clinton probably would have ended up winning.
I like proportional rep. I hate the electoral college and the winner take all nature of the states in the general.
Because we're not talking about electing an individual to a government position, but a political party choosing it's standard-bearer. Honestly, I think there are First Amendment questions with regard to open primaries with regards to freedom of association (and that goes double for jungle "primaries" (which actually aren't even primaries at all!))
Grey Lady is sounding the charge to shut down the Benghazi panel. What's sad is that it took an outright admission of what everyone already knew for this to come about.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Traditionally they go for either whomever won the popular vote in their state, or the overall consensus candidate... even if they've previously endorsed someone else. That's why all those superdelegates went for Obama late in the '08 primary, even ones who had previously endorsed Clinton.
However, traditionally the Democratic candidates are actually Democrats. If Bernie ends up doing well in the primary, and it comes down to the superdelegates getting to decide between Actual Democrat Hillary or Popular Vote and State Winner Bernie, they may very well go for Hillary. I think they're much more important this election than they have been in the past.
I have a feeling that if any kind of procedural tactic steals the nomination from Bernie, the dems will lose in the general.
I'm gonna disagree there. And it isn't stealing if Hillary wins fairly.
Also current polling shows Hillary ahead 50% to Bernies 24% so he's got a long way to go for the nom to be "stolen" from him.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Exactly. There's a reason Bernie is the underdog in this race.
Hillary won the popular vote in '08. Enough superdelegates voted for Obama that they could've been the deciding vote. And yet people didn't see them voting for the popular vote loser as a "procedural tactic". It's not a perfect comparison, those superdelegates switched votes because Obama was becoming the consensus victor anyway, but it's close enough.
I dunno, if somehow we ended up in a scenario where Hillary won via those sorts of shenanigans, I'd seriously consider not voting for her in the general--even though I'll gladly vote for her if she wins normally (which will likely be the case), which already isn't the case for a certain segment of Bernie's support.
So he might have a point, whether you want to consider it 'stealing' or 'a fair win'.
That said, I think that outcome's pretty unlikely. I can't imagine the party would be dumb enough to slap the left that hard in the face.
Popular vote, but not based on states with proportionate delegates, right? I thought he won without the super delegates (i.e., ignore them completely).
The superdelegates voting never happened/mattered because Obama ran unopposed by the time they voted. Clinton conceded and endorsed Obama on June 7th. Obama surpassed the number of delegates (excluding superdelegates) needed for a majority on June 3rd. The Convention wasn't until August. Once Clinton conceded, superdelegate votes were "locked" in terms of estimates, but they didn't matter any more. They COULD have given it to Clinton, but Clinton herself was the one who avoided that problem by conceding (and good for her for doing so).
What shenanigans? She isn't breaking the rules, she's playing by them. That's why it's pertinent for candidates running in the primary to understand the rules and know how to use them to their advantage. The last time she failed to do that, she lost to a candidate who did. His name was Barack Obama. Bernie has no excuses not to know how the game is played.
That isn't a slap, it's politics. If Bernie had the political strength to win this, good for him, but if he doesn't he, or any other left wing candidate, needs to learn why he failed so it isn't repeated.
And honestly, there's something to be said for party insiders having a greater say in the nominee. *glances sidelong over at Trump on the Republican side*
It's not something to learn. If the people choose Bernie Sanders and then party insiders give Hillary the nod instead, how is that not a defeat for democracy? It is literally the elites choosing out leaders without our consent.
That isn't what's happening, though. The Democratic primaries are made a certain way, and it up to Bernie to figure out how to use them to his advantage to win it. He can't win it by votes alone, that was never an option. Hillary learnt this the hard way in 2008. Obama didn't steal the election away from her. That isn't stealing, and it isn't his - not yet, anyway. For something to be stolen implied he had it in the first place, and right now he doesn't. If he can't figure this out it isn't a glowing endorsement for how he'd run the country, which is a lot more complicated than these primaries. This is why it's important for Bernie to have an "in" with party insiders, too. He's running for the Democratic nominee, he needs allies in the party who will back him.
edit: This isn't about voters consent, this is how it's operated for years. Voters are one part of winning Democratic primaries, the delegates are another - candidates need both to win. This is what he signed up for.
edit: The GOP have their own rules for primaries too, if a candidate can't use them to their advantage or fails to understand the process they will lose. RE: Ron Paul.
I'm not saying he has anything. He is way behind Clinton. All I am saying is that if Sanders ends up with more delegates and then the super delegates go Hillary's way and give her the nomination, that would seem dishonest. The party basically slapping down the upstart with the I next to his name.
My point is that SKFM is complaining about the superdelegates being undemocratic. In '08, the closest thing to a democratic victor was Clinton; she won the popular vote. Obama won for reasons like doing well in caucus states (where delegate allotment has nothing to do with the popular vote). There was also a theoretical option of the superdelegates getting together, deciding that Hillary should win because she won the popular vote, and giving her the nomination. In this hypothetical scenario, I am more than willing to bet Hillary would've stuck it out instead of dropping.
But they didn't. They voted for the popular vote loser and no one cared enough for it to cost Obama the general election. US presidential elections have never been geared towards giving victory to the popular vote winner, general or primary.
Likewise, in the hypothetical case of Bernie winning the popular vote in a close match in '16 (and it'd have to be reasonably close for superdelegates to make a difference), superdelegates would have the power to shift victory to Hillary, the popular vote loser. As I said in my last post, it's not a perfect comparison because Obama was becoming the consensus candidate (ie, he had the non-superdelegate vote victory). But it's close enough and there's no way in hell people are going to say "Boy howdy, that Bernie Sanders fellow would've won the primary by a handful of votes if the Vermont governor had cast his superdelegate for Bernie instead of Hillary. I like her, but I think I'm going to stay home in the general in protest of this unfair system."
Compound that with the fact that candidates need a majority, not just a plurality, so there's not really such a thing as "without the superdelegate votes".
That's not dishonest, it's the rules. You're also getting too ahead of yourself, the primaries just started. Stealing implies Bernie does have the nomination, he hasn't got it. To win Bernie must use the rules better than she does, that's politics.
edit: Winning elections isn't just about counting votes, there are rules every politician needs to abide. They fail to do this and they'll lose.
edit: Discounting Hillary vote wise isn't good, either. She's a very popular candidate the Dems have, meanwhile Bernie is an unknown. He's going to have fight for those votes.
Yup. I don't think she'll be that foolish again.