There's no reason to have more debates, I don't think. I don't think they're Sanders' best format either. He drives up attendance at rallies and does very well in them.
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
Wow, Sanders pokes and the continuing investigation sure is dampening support for Cli-Whoopsh!.
Huh, I would have assumed that Sanders would win the enthusiasm contest in a landslide. Good to see some enthusiasm for Hillary.
+4
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited March 2016
If you care about the party's chances and you think Sanders is getting a bit too selfish and spirited as a combatant, you may feel like putting your foot down rather than obliging, especially when he's been an independent for decades but is running as a D for extra exposure and attention. I think Clinton should step up again but there should be some pressure on Sanders to prepare one hell of a conciliatory and approving concession speech if it comes to that. He can say what he wants to his supporters but he should recognize the likelihood of losing and prepare accordingly in private discussions.
I believe that Clinton wants to get rid of the big donor effect on politics as it is generally harmful to her party and her goals, primarily in down ticket races. You may not, that's fine.
Who knows what is in Hillary's heart? If you look at the behavior of the DNC as an organization, though, it becomes difficult to believe that they either have a genuine desire for campaign finance reform or growing the party's talent pool in down-ticket races. They seem mostly motivated by featherbedding their own positions in the party system.
I don't pretend to know what is in Clinton's heart. Her stated policy position is being against Citizens United. Thus, that is what I think is her position.
There's no reason to have more debates, I don't think. I don't think they're Sanders' best format either. He drives up attendance at rallies and does very well in them.
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
I don't think Clinton is scared to debate Sanders or Trump in the slightest. She generally does really well in that setting. She's leading comfortably right now and generally the leading campaign tries to avoid debates to avoid any unforced errors.
She's under no obligation to just debate when and where Bernie wants to, and calling on his campaign to cut the personal attacks isn't a rediculous thing to press him on.
As far as optics go, I think this is isn't the greatest call from the Clinton campaign because it makes her sound a little bit like she's whining.
Wow, Sanders pokes and the continuing investigation sure is dampening support for Cli-Whoopsh!.
Huh, I would have assumed that Sanders would win the enthusiasm contest in a landslide. Good to see some enthusiasm for Hillary.
It's because of demographic differences. They show enthusiasm in different ways.
Like, when I went to a Clinton book signing, most of the line was middle aged women. A few other young people, a few other men, but middle aged or older women made up the large majority. They weren't chanting. They weren't shouting. They weren't waving signs around. But talking to them, they were clearly incredibly enthusiastic, almost to the point of worship. The young people who make up a big part of Bernie's base are happy as fuck to show how much they love their candidate, as loudly and as often as they can.
There's no reason to have more debates, I don't think. I don't think they're Sanders' best format either. He drives up attendance at rallies and does very well in them.
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
There's no reason to allow herself to be personally attacked from the left and painted more and more directly as corrupt or undeserving of the nomination, which appears to be the current direction of at least Sander's top campaign surrogates. This isn't "I'm scared to debate Sanders," this is "I have no reason to go to a debate and solidify your supporter's opinion I am not worth voting for."
I ate an engineer
+12
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I believe that Clinton wants to get rid of the big donor effect on politics as it is generally harmful to her party and her goals, primarily in down ticket races. You may not, that's fine.
Who knows what is in Hillary's heart? If you look at the behavior of the DNC as an organization, though, it becomes difficult to believe that they either have a genuine desire for campaign finance reform or growing the party's talent pool in down-ticket races. They seem mostly motivated by featherbedding their own positions in the party system.
I don't pretend to know what is in Clinton's heart. Her stated policy position is being against Citizens United. Thus, that is what I think is her position.
You may not. That's fine.
Suppose that Clinton is interested in reforming campaign finance. Does just the possession of that desire thereby immunize her from the influences currently operating on her in this, our system that has not yet been reformed? Unless the answer is "yes," this remains non-responsive.
There's no reason to have more debates, I don't think. I don't think they're Sanders' best format either. He drives up attendance at rallies and does very well in them.
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
I don't think Clinton is scared to debate Sanders or Trump in the slightest. She generally does really well in that setting. She's leading comfortably right now and generally the leading campaign tries to avoid debates to avoid any unforced errors.
She's under no obligation to just debate when and where Bernie wants to, and calling on his campaign to cut the personal attacks isn't a rediculous thing to press him on.
As far as optics go, I think this is isn't the greatest call from the Clinton campaign because it makes her sound a little bit like she's whining.
Honestly, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world, it's the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote, you should be willing to debate any time, anywhere.
Following the law to raise more money while fighting to change it isn't corrupt.
Unilateral disarmament is rarely a successful strategy.
This point is non-responsive. The reason that we want campaign finance laws—and the upshot of that exchange—is that this donation system is corrupting. Do we have any reason to believe that all our ordinary understandings of money in politics stop being operative when Hillary takes the stage? If not, then we have no reason to think that those donors are not currying special influence with Hillary, just as very large donors generally do.
Earlier, people were claiming that there was no difference in dollar amounts (which was just weird), and that so long as the money was passed along to the DLC there was absolutely no corruption worry. I am pointing out here that if these are really things you think, it is inexplicable why we should have even those very scant campaign finance laws that we do. It isn't even that this is Alito's view: it's that, if you pay attention to the exchange and its context, it is to the right of Alito's view (Thomas is the sole justice that comes close).
This is all consistent with the thought that this is the best candidate we will ever get, because that is the way to win elections. That would just mean that the best candidate we can get is one who is susceptible to special influence from the donor class. That is why that response is, well, non-responsive.
Given that our first post made no mention of what your actual point was, being responsive is rather difficult. Some responded by pointing out that getting better protections against corruption requires winning seats and offices, which requires money. Of course, considering part of this post addresses that issue it seems rather silly to accuse others oh being non-responsive considering they still managed to respond to a part of what you apparently many.
If your point was to respond to the idea that the amount matters then you sold need to establish where the line is. At what point does it move from donation to corruption.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
There's no reason to have more debates, I don't think. I don't think they're Sanders' best format either. He drives up attendance at rallies and does very well in them.
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
I don't think Clinton is scared to debate Sanders or Trump in the slightest. She generally does really well in that setting. She's leading comfortably right now and generally the leading campaign tries to avoid debates to avoid any unforced errors.
She's under no obligation to just debate when and where Bernie wants to, and calling on his campaign to cut the personal attacks isn't a rediculous thing to press him on.
As far as optics go, I think this is isn't the greatest call from the Clinton campaign because it makes her sound a little bit like she's whining.
Yes, the winning campaign always tries to avoid debates. It's not rocket surgery.
I believe that Clinton wants to get rid of the big donor effect on politics as it is generally harmful to her party and her goals, primarily in down ticket races. You may not, that's fine.
Who knows what is in Hillary's heart? If you look at the behavior of the DNC as an organization, though, it becomes difficult to believe that they either have a genuine desire for campaign finance reform or growing the party's talent pool in down-ticket races. They seem mostly motivated by featherbedding their own positions in the party system.
I don't pretend to know what is in Clinton's heart. Her stated policy position is being against Citizens United. Thus, that is what I think is her position.
You may not. That's fine.
Suppose that Clinton is interested in reforming campaign finance. Does just the possession of that desire thereby immunize her from the influences currently operating on her in this, our system that has not yet been reformed? Unless the answer is "yes," this remains non-responsive.
At the point you feel compelled to make candidate's stated positions a "suppose," we are well past the point we can have a useful discussion. That's too deep in the "what does she really believe" shit.
There's no reason to have more debates, I don't think. I don't think they're Sanders' best format either. He drives up attendance at rallies and does very well in them.
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
I don't think Clinton is scared to debate Sanders or Trump in the slightest. She generally does really well in that setting. She's leading comfortably right now and generally the leading campaign tries to avoid debates to avoid any unforced errors.
She's under no obligation to just debate when and where Bernie wants to, and calling on his campaign to cut the personal attacks isn't a rediculous thing to press him on.
As far as optics go, I think this is isn't the greatest call from the Clinton campaign because it makes her sound a little bit like she's whining.
Honestly, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world, it's the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote, you should be willing to debate any time, anywhere.
Her words in 2008.
It's not exactly hypocritical. I think she'll agree to the debates in the end, but even if she doesn't it's not like she's going to just take those nights off. She will be "[campaigning] for every vote". That doesn't require her to waste time on a stage rehashing old points against a guy who's already lost the race in all but name.
There's no reason to have more debates, I don't think. I don't think they're Sanders' best format either. He drives up attendance at rallies and does very well in them.
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
I don't think Clinton is scared to debate Sanders or Trump in the slightest. She generally does really well in that setting. She's leading comfortably right now and generally the leading campaign tries to avoid debates to avoid any unforced errors.
She's under no obligation to just debate when and where Bernie wants to, and calling on his campaign to cut the personal attacks isn't a rediculous thing to press him on.
As far as optics go, I think this is isn't the greatest call from the Clinton campaign because it makes her sound a little bit like she's whining.
Honestly, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world, it's the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote, you should be willing to debate any time, anywhere.
Her words in 2008.
Yes, I know that. But I'll echo the statement that she's under no obligation to get up on stage with Bernie to have him call her corrupt and attack her character more than they discuss actual policy differences.
The campaigns that lag behind are always the ones that clamor for more debates. It's the only shot they have of getting wide exposure to people who are undecided.
A strong front runner doesn't need to debate anyone but another front runner. Hillary needs to be debating Trump, not wasting time with Bernie at this point.
I believe that Clinton wants to get rid of the big donor effect on politics as it is generally harmful to her party and her goals, primarily in down ticket races. You may not, that's fine.
Who knows what is in Hillary's heart? If you look at the behavior of the DNC as an organization, though, it becomes difficult to believe that they either have a genuine desire for campaign finance reform or growing the party's talent pool in down-ticket races. They seem mostly motivated by featherbedding their own positions in the party system.
I don't pretend to know what is in Clinton's heart. Her stated policy position is being against Citizens United. Thus, that is what I think is her position.
You may not. That's fine.
Suppose that Clinton is interested in reforming campaign finance. Does just the possession of that desire thereby immunize her from the influences currently operating on her in this, our system that has not yet been reformed? Unless the answer is "yes," this remains non-responsive.
It does on the subject of campaign finance reform.
Maybe you should stop throwing around the term "non-responsive" like it's a meaningful reply.
There's no reason to have more debates, I don't think. I don't think they're Sanders' best format either. He drives up attendance at rallies and does very well in them.
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
I don't think Clinton is scared to debate Sanders or Trump in the slightest. She generally does really well in that setting. She's leading comfortably right now and generally the leading campaign tries to avoid debates to avoid any unforced errors.
She's under no obligation to just debate when and where Bernie wants to, and calling on his campaign to cut the personal attacks isn't a rediculous thing to press him on.
As far as optics go, I think this is isn't the greatest call from the Clinton campaign because it makes her sound a little bit like she's whining.
Yes, the winning campaign always tries to avoid debates. It's not rocket surgery.
And the comments about tone are not her expressing why she won't debate him so much as her taking the opportunity to tell Sanders to stop being such a dick piston.
+2
Options
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
I believe that Clinton wants to get rid of the big donor effect on politics as it is generally harmful to her party and her goals, primarily in down ticket races. You may not, that's fine.
The short version is that Sanders is winning along age lines despite race, and it's kind of uncool to generalize about how he's doing with minorities.
But it's not uncool to generalize asking age lines?
He's doing badly along race lines regardless of age. Just less badly with younger minority voters.
Did I say that it was?
Pointing out he's winning or losing a demographic is fine and factual. The article specifically references the media narrative that Sanders can only win white people, even after winning places like Hawaii. It goes on to point out that he is actually winning black people of the ages 17-29 by 51-48, and Hispanics of the same age group by 66-34. Yet the narrative is that Sanders only wins where the white people carry him, and it leaves younger minorities feeling like they don't count as black/Hispanic/Asian/Native American/etc.
It's a good article! Did you read it?
joshofalltrades on
+9
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Following the law to raise more money while fighting to change it isn't corrupt.
Unilateral disarmament is rarely a successful strategy.
This point is non-responsive. The reason that we want campaign finance laws—and the upshot of that exchange—is that this donation system is corrupting. Do we have any reason to believe that all our ordinary understandings of money in politics stop being operative when Hillary takes the stage? If not, then we have no reason to think that those donors are not currying special influence with Hillary, just as very large donors generally do.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to claim that this system can be generally corrupting and claim that someone using this particular system is not corrupt. Or at least that their usage is not proof of their corruption. We generally allow that politicians can deal with the nature of money to some extent, otherwise why allow donation at all.
One can think something is corrupting without necessarily agreeing that everyone using the thing is corrupt or corrupted.
I can agree with the sentiment that it's foolish to forego resources that your enemy takes
however Jeb! seems to show that money doesn't actually work in this cycle all that hard and Hillary's going to be against someone who's almost a literal fascist
but I mean, giant corporations don't donate because they feel generous, they do expect return
I think more debates are always a good thing, as having more of the candidates be exposed to the people voting for them is a good thing. I can, of course, see why the Clinton campaign wants to avoid more of them.
It surprises me to hear the Clinton campaign mention negative ads. I haven't seen any of those from Bernie, other than one mentioning what his opponent is doing and what he's doing instead. Did I miss something?
The short version is that Sanders is winning along age lines despite race, and it's kind of uncool to generalize about how he's doing with minorities.
"Among African-Americans, who are 17 through 29, Bernie Sanders is actually leading that group, 51 to 48 [percent]," he said. "Among 17-to-29-year old Hispanics, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 66-34."
Interesting. I didn't actually look up numbers young Hispanics, before. That's better than I expected.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Following the law to raise more money while fighting to change it isn't corrupt.
Unilateral disarmament is rarely a successful strategy.
This point is non-responsive. The reason that we want campaign finance laws—and the upshot of that exchange—is that this donation system is corrupting. Do we have any reason to believe that all our ordinary understandings of money in politics stop being operative when Hillary takes the stage? If not, then we have no reason to think that those donors are not currying special influence with Hillary, just as very large donors generally do.
Earlier, people were claiming that there was no difference in dollar amounts (which was just weird), and that so long as the money was passed along to the DLC there was absolutely no corruption worry. I am pointing out here that if these are really things you think, it is inexplicable why we should have even those very scant campaign finance laws that we do. It isn't even that this is Alito's view: it's that, if you pay attention to the exchange and its context, it is to the right of Alito's view (Thomas is the sole justice that comes close).
This is all consistent with the thought that this is the best candidate we will ever get, because that is the way to win elections. That would just mean that the best candidate we can get is one who is susceptible to special influence from the donor class. That is why that response is, well, non-responsive.
Given that our first post made no mention of what your actual point was, being responsive is rather difficult. Some responded by pointing out that getting better protections against corruption requires winning seats and offices, which requires money. Of course, considering part of this post addresses that issue it seems rather silly to accuse others oh being non-responsive considering they still managed to respond to a part of what you apparently many.
If your point was to respond to the idea that the amount matters then you sold need to establish where the line is. At what point does it move from donation to corruption.
I believe that I was rather clear (and, indeed, that many others found me to be so). I will say something about your last claim, though, which it is farcical.
First: why is it incumbent on me to specify some dollar amount at which donations present an undue risk of corruption?
Suppose I say: "it's perfectly fine to speak to a stranger politely from several feet away. On the other hand, it's assaultive and breaks both legal and social norms to get inches from their face and scream at them." But, of course, these two actions can be placed on continua of distance and volume. Precisely how close is it permissible to approach a stranger, in fractions of an inch? Where is the line? It is not incumbent on me to say, just by virtue of noting the very obvious fact that 4 feet is okay and 1/16th of an inch isn't.
So I think this demand is misguided in one way: it is demanding something that I should not feel required to provide.
But second: it is misguided in another way at the same time. It is misguided because the legislature has in fact considered this question, and the limits they settled were that gifts of more than $33,400 to a national party committee presented an undue risk of corruption. The current gifts Clinton is funneling to the DNC exceed that amount by an order of magnitude. Now, the legislature tried to also set up aggregate limits that would have stopped this sort of giving, which they again found to present an undue risk of corruption, but those were struck down by the Court on the grounds that the behavior they anticipated was too outlandish to take seriously (ha ha) and so the restrictions could not be justified. So, in saying that a gift of $340,000 funneled through a candidate to the DNC presents an undue risk of corruption I am not, in fact, departing from the understanding outlined by either the legislature or even of the (hostile, right wing) majority on the court in considering this question. Rather, it is the people who see no risk of undue influence who depart from those common understandings, in a really quite radical way.
MrMister on
+7
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I believe that Clinton wants to get rid of the big donor effect on politics as it is generally harmful to her party and her goals, primarily in down ticket races. You may not, that's fine.
Who knows what is in Hillary's heart? If you look at the behavior of the DNC as an organization, though, it becomes difficult to believe that they either have a genuine desire for campaign finance reform or growing the party's talent pool in down-ticket races. They seem mostly motivated by featherbedding their own positions in the party system.
I don't pretend to know what is in Clinton's heart. Her stated policy position is being against Citizens United. Thus, that is what I think is her position.
You may not. That's fine.
Suppose that Clinton is interested in reforming campaign finance. Does just the possession of that desire thereby immunize her from the influences currently operating on her in this, our system that has not yet been reformed? Unless the answer is "yes," this remains non-responsive.
At the point you feel compelled to make candidate's stated positions a "suppose," we are well past the point we can have a useful discussion. That's too deep in the "what does she really believe" shit.
Saying "suppose" explicitly brackets the question of what she really believes, precisely because it is unnecessary to the point being made to question her sincerity.
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
a lot of Bernie's youth numbers make me pretty hopeful for the future of the democratic party, whether he wins or not. hopefully, if he doesn't get the nomination, young people will still turn out for Hillary.
I think more debates are always a good thing, as having more of the candidates be exposed to the people voting for them is a good thing. I can, of course, see why the Clinton campaign wants to avoid more of them.
It surprises me to hear the Clinton campaign mention negative ads. I haven't seen any of those from Bernie, other than one mentioning what his opponent is doing and what he's doing instead. Did I miss something?
It's mostly it's their position in the campaign. They're ahead and the path looks clear, so no incentive to agree to more debates. They'll just dance around each other in public for a while as the media covers the more interesting race on the other side.
I think its pretty clear that Super PACs and CU benefit the Right more than the Left.
Thus, I think its pretty clear why Democratic nominee HRC would want to get rid of them. She seems very interested in the Party as a whole. If she wins the Democratic nomination, she'll face Republican Super PACs. If she wins the Presidency, she'll have to deal with them being used in 2018 to turn the Senate and House hostile towards her actions and legislation, like what happened in 2010 and 2014.
I get the croupting influence of CU, I do. But, I also don't understand why HRC would want them to stay. Logically, they give more money to her opponents than they do to her (Exception being this current Bernie v Hillary race). Sure, they money she gets now would be nice to have for a theoretical 2020 re-election run, but they're a double edged sword that seems to cut her much more than the other side.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Are we playing the Hillary Clinton Bad Faith Bonanza Game again?
The one where she's damned no matter what she does, because even VERY public and VERY definitive stances (in this case CU) aren't enough to sway some people from questioning her motives regardless?
It seems pointless for her to put effort into trying to convince people who already firmly believe she is corrupt. There's no winning there, anything she does will just be taken as more evidence that she's bought and paid for by..somebody. I guess George Clooney, in this case.
Are we playing the Hillary Clinton Bad Faith Bonanza Game again?
The one where she's damned no matter what she does, because even VERY public and VERY definitive stances (in this case CU) aren't enough to sway some people from questioning her motives regardless?
a lot of Bernie's youth numbers make me pretty hopeful for the future of the democratic party, whether he wins or not. hopefully, if he doesn't get the nomination, young people will still turn out for Hillary.
There's a lot of political data that a cohorts partisan association at 18-25 carries pretty strongly forward, if not necessarily ideology. I'm hoping the Sanders thing translates into Democratic support and not third party ineffectiveness into nonparticipation
a lot of Bernie's youth numbers make me pretty hopeful for the future of the democratic party, whether he wins or not. hopefully, if he doesn't get the nomination, young people will still turn out for Hillary.
I've been thinking about this lately and I've come up with an analogy: the NFL.
You spend all year cheering on your team, hopefully watching them in the playoffs, but they lose. The Superbowl ends up being the Patriots and literally any other team.
You cheer on the other team because you're a decent human being.
It seems pointless for her to put effort into trying to convince people who already firmly believe she is corrupt. There's no winning there, anything she does will just be taken as more evidence that she's bought and paid for by..somebody. I guess George Clooney, in this case.
I mean, personally there's quite a few things she could do that make me like her more. I'd be impressed if she actually released her speeches, and even more so if there's nothing objectionable in them for one example. There's a pretty good chance I'm going to have to vote for her regardless, so I guess there's no real reason for her to do it. But there are definitely ways she could make me like her more. That doesn't seem to be happening with every new news story I hear though.
The short version is that Sanders is winning along age lines despite race, and it's kind of uncool to generalize about how he's doing with minorities.
But it's not uncool to generalize asking age lines?
He's doing badly along race lines regardless of age. Just less badly with younger minority voters.
Did I say that it was?
Pointing out he's winning or losing a demographic is fine and factual. The article specifically references the media narrative that Sanders can only win white people, even after winning places like Hawaii. It goes on to point out that he is actually winning black people of the ages 17-29 by 51-48, and Hispanics of the same age group by 66-34. Yet the narrative is that Sanders only wins where the white people carry him, and it leaves younger minorities feeling like they don't count as black/Hispanic/Asian/Native American/etc.
It's a good article! Did you read it?
You say "This thing us fine" followed by "But this same thing is also not fine". The narrative is that "Sanders mostly wins white people based on the overall demographics of the primary". Sanders can both have young minority sports, and even win young minority voters, and still do badly overall with minorities.
Posts
Enthusiastic for Voting in 2016 (Gallup)
Extremely+Very: Clinton 54, Sanders, 44
Somewhat: Clinton 23, Sanders 27
He's been getting better and better with each debate. He killed the last debate and did very well on the last town hall. Hillary Clinton herself said it's the most important job in the world, and you should be debating at any time, anywhere. If she thinks Bernie's tone is harsh I don't know how she'll handle Trump.
The short version is that Sanders is winning along age lines despite race, and it's kind of uncool to generalize about how he's doing with minorities.
Huh, I would have assumed that Sanders would win the enthusiasm contest in a landslide. Good to see some enthusiasm for Hillary.
I don't pretend to know what is in Clinton's heart. Her stated policy position is being against Citizens United. Thus, that is what I think is her position.
You may not. That's fine.
I don't think Clinton is scared to debate Sanders or Trump in the slightest. She generally does really well in that setting. She's leading comfortably right now and generally the leading campaign tries to avoid debates to avoid any unforced errors.
She's under no obligation to just debate when and where Bernie wants to, and calling on his campaign to cut the personal attacks isn't a rediculous thing to press him on.
As far as optics go, I think this is isn't the greatest call from the Clinton campaign because it makes her sound a little bit like she's whining.
It's because of demographic differences. They show enthusiasm in different ways.
Like, when I went to a Clinton book signing, most of the line was middle aged women. A few other young people, a few other men, but middle aged or older women made up the large majority. They weren't chanting. They weren't shouting. They weren't waving signs around. But talking to them, they were clearly incredibly enthusiastic, almost to the point of worship. The young people who make up a big part of Bernie's base are happy as fuck to show how much they love their candidate, as loudly and as often as they can.
There's no reason to allow herself to be personally attacked from the left and painted more and more directly as corrupt or undeserving of the nomination, which appears to be the current direction of at least Sander's top campaign surrogates. This isn't "I'm scared to debate Sanders," this is "I have no reason to go to a debate and solidify your supporter's opinion I am not worth voting for."
Suppose that Clinton is interested in reforming campaign finance. Does just the possession of that desire thereby immunize her from the influences currently operating on her in this, our system that has not yet been reformed? Unless the answer is "yes," this remains non-responsive.
Her words in 2008.
Given that our first post made no mention of what your actual point was, being responsive is rather difficult. Some responded by pointing out that getting better protections against corruption requires winning seats and offices, which requires money. Of course, considering part of this post addresses that issue it seems rather silly to accuse others oh being non-responsive considering they still managed to respond to a part of what you apparently many.
If your point was to respond to the idea that the amount matters then you sold need to establish where the line is. At what point does it move from donation to corruption.
Yes, the winning campaign always tries to avoid debates. It's not rocket surgery.
pleasepaypreacher.net
At the point you feel compelled to make candidate's stated positions a "suppose," we are well past the point we can have a useful discussion. That's too deep in the "what does she really believe" shit.
It's not exactly hypocritical. I think she'll agree to the debates in the end, but even if she doesn't it's not like she's going to just take those nights off. She will be "[campaigning] for every vote". That doesn't require her to waste time on a stage rehashing old points against a guy who's already lost the race in all but name.
Yes, I know that. But I'll echo the statement that she's under no obligation to get up on stage with Bernie to have him call her corrupt and attack her character more than they discuss actual policy differences.
But it's not uncool to generalize asking age lines?
He's doing badly along race lines regardless of age. Just less badly with younger minority voters.
it's almost like talking about demographics as monoliths is insulting or something
The campaigns that lag behind are always the ones that clamor for more debates. It's the only shot they have of getting wide exposure to people who are undecided.
A strong front runner doesn't need to debate anyone but another front runner. Hillary needs to be debating Trump, not wasting time with Bernie at this point.
It does on the subject of campaign finance reform.
Maybe you should stop throwing around the term "non-responsive" like it's a meaningful reply.
And the comments about tone are not her expressing why she won't debate him so much as her taking the opportunity to tell Sanders to stop being such a dick piston.
The... Shadow knows?
Did I say that it was?
Pointing out he's winning or losing a demographic is fine and factual. The article specifically references the media narrative that Sanders can only win white people, even after winning places like Hawaii. It goes on to point out that he is actually winning black people of the ages 17-29 by 51-48, and Hispanics of the same age group by 66-34. Yet the narrative is that Sanders only wins where the white people carry him, and it leaves younger minorities feeling like they don't count as black/Hispanic/Asian/Native American/etc.
It's a good article! Did you read it?
It doesn't seem unreasonable to claim that this system can be generally corrupting and claim that someone using this particular system is not corrupt. Or at least that their usage is not proof of their corruption. We generally allow that politicians can deal with the nature of money to some extent, otherwise why allow donation at all.
One can think something is corrupting without necessarily agreeing that everyone using the thing is corrupt or corrupted.
What corporations do you think have donated?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It surprises me to hear the Clinton campaign mention negative ads. I haven't seen any of those from Bernie, other than one mentioning what his opponent is doing and what he's doing instead. Did I miss something?
Interesting. I didn't actually look up numbers young Hispanics, before. That's better than I expected.
I believe that I was rather clear (and, indeed, that many others found me to be so). I will say something about your last claim, though, which it is farcical.
First: why is it incumbent on me to specify some dollar amount at which donations present an undue risk of corruption?
Suppose I say: "it's perfectly fine to speak to a stranger politely from several feet away. On the other hand, it's assaultive and breaks both legal and social norms to get inches from their face and scream at them." But, of course, these two actions can be placed on continua of distance and volume. Precisely how close is it permissible to approach a stranger, in fractions of an inch? Where is the line? It is not incumbent on me to say, just by virtue of noting the very obvious fact that 4 feet is okay and 1/16th of an inch isn't.
So I think this demand is misguided in one way: it is demanding something that I should not feel required to provide.
But second: it is misguided in another way at the same time. It is misguided because the legislature has in fact considered this question, and the limits they settled were that gifts of more than $33,400 to a national party committee presented an undue risk of corruption. The current gifts Clinton is funneling to the DNC exceed that amount by an order of magnitude. Now, the legislature tried to also set up aggregate limits that would have stopped this sort of giving, which they again found to present an undue risk of corruption, but those were struck down by the Court on the grounds that the behavior they anticipated was too outlandish to take seriously (ha ha) and so the restrictions could not be justified. So, in saying that a gift of $340,000 funneled through a candidate to the DNC presents an undue risk of corruption I am not, in fact, departing from the understanding outlined by either the legislature or even of the (hostile, right wing) majority on the court in considering this question. Rather, it is the people who see no risk of undue influence who depart from those common understandings, in a really quite radical way.
Saying "suppose" explicitly brackets the question of what she really believes, precisely because it is unnecessary to the point being made to question her sincerity.
It's mostly it's their position in the campaign. They're ahead and the path looks clear, so no incentive to agree to more debates. They'll just dance around each other in public for a while as the media covers the more interesting race on the other side.
Thus, I think its pretty clear why Democratic nominee HRC would want to get rid of them. She seems very interested in the Party as a whole. If she wins the Democratic nomination, she'll face Republican Super PACs. If she wins the Presidency, she'll have to deal with them being used in 2018 to turn the Senate and House hostile towards her actions and legislation, like what happened in 2010 and 2014.
I get the croupting influence of CU, I do. But, I also don't understand why HRC would want them to stay. Logically, they give more money to her opponents than they do to her (Exception being this current Bernie v Hillary race). Sure, they money she gets now would be nice to have for a theoretical 2020 re-election run, but they're a double edged sword that seems to cut her much more than the other side.
The one where she's damned no matter what she does, because even VERY public and VERY definitive stances (in this case CU) aren't enough to sway some people from questioning her motives regardless?
Can we not do this (again)?
Not really, it seems irrelevant to Mr2.
There's a lot of political data that a cohorts partisan association at 18-25 carries pretty strongly forward, if not necessarily ideology. I'm hoping the Sanders thing translates into Democratic support and not third party ineffectiveness into nonparticipation
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I've been thinking about this lately and I've come up with an analogy: the NFL.
You spend all year cheering on your team, hopefully watching them in the playoffs, but they lose. The Superbowl ends up being the Patriots and literally any other team.
You cheer on the other team because you're a decent human being.
I mean, personally there's quite a few things she could do that make me like her more. I'd be impressed if she actually released her speeches, and even more so if there's nothing objectionable in them for one example. There's a pretty good chance I'm going to have to vote for her regardless, so I guess there's no real reason for her to do it. But there are definitely ways she could make me like her more. That doesn't seem to be happening with every new news story I hear though.
You say "This thing us fine" followed by "But this same thing is also not fine". The narrative is that "Sanders mostly wins white people based on the overall demographics of the primary". Sanders can both have young minority sports, and even win young minority voters, and still do badly overall with minorities.