The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The Last 2016 Election Thread You'll Ever Wear
Posts
Within the context of a primary I don't see why that's unreasonable. When it comes time to vote in the general I can understand taking one for the team, but if we want less corporate and monied influence in our government isn't the primary a fair time to express that in voting choices?
Yes, but at the same time viewing the mere exposure to the wealthy as irredeemable corruption, that's a bit pants haberdashery. Look at all the gooseshit that went on around the Clinton Foundation, where the press was so desperate to show that it reflected the "appearance of impropriety", even when it was repeatedly shown that it was handled to firewall those concerns. Meanwhile, the only reason we knew about the open corruption of the Trump Foundation was because David Fahrenthold spent quality time with a phone and a notepad.
That was more or less enough to paint Hillary as a near criminal.
Her speaking fees were supposedly proof that she was beholden to those interests, despite her voting record not showing any hint of it.
And then of course she gets labeled as a "corporate whore". That sort of interaction with anyone wealthy isn't helpful.
Apples to oranges
you're talking about like 3/4 of the country for the first thing
the second number is much smaller
Maybe some do, but a notable number of people here seem to find the notion that rich people get something out of their access and donations to be unthinkable.
Also a hilarious (because finding it any other emotion than hilarious would lead to a catatonic state) assumption of oh so many people that the Clinton Foundation is her personal bank account
You're right that the numbers aren't equal, but I don't think that matters too much. As we've seen this past year, sometimes elections hinge on small margins. If a single percent of Trump voters were left wingers who were voting against a candidate they saw as corrupt because of her political prominence and success, Hillary would've won the presidency. Or only a very small portion of the (very large!) nonvoting public in the three converted blue wall states, or some combination of both.
The numbers of far left potential voters who see success as corruption might not have been enough to make a difference in elections like 2004 or the three solid GOP victories in the 80s, but not every election is a landslide. Those small margins do matter.
Hate to let you in on the secret: Everyone who has the time to run for high office is going to be rich. Equating wealth with villainy is a simplistic and infantile approach to politics. Poor people can't take months off to run for office, and the skills that lead to the ability to run a competent campaign or be an effective office holder are also valuable in the job market. And the people with money to fund campaigns, especially ones that aren't high profile like Presidential runs, are the people with disposable income.
Know who was fuck you, patrician born rich? FDR. JFK. TR.
Know who wasn't notably rich? Reagan. Nixon.
The Obamas had a net worth of 5+ million when he was sworn in and they're worth 25+ now. The last First Couple to not be a millionaires when sworn in was the Clintons (with Hillary as the primary breadwinner), and they're generally portrayed as plutocrats now. Every major candidate on the Democratic side was a millionaire this time around and I'm pretty sure that's the case on the GOP side too.
Increasingly wealth correlates with education, especially adjusted for age. Increasingly education correlates with progressive views, especially adjusted for age. Poor whites are among the most socially conservative groups because in large part they lack education. And they're also the group with the strongest racial animus and misogynistic viewpoints. And they, like almost everyone, vote on social/cultural grounds far more than economic grounds.
White people can be for racial justice and rich people can want to reduce inequality, even if neither directly benefits or even loses out in the deal. Whenever you have a group that is underrepresented in power structures or for whom the system is prejudiced against in a democratic system, the way they gain power is convincing enough of those who have it they should. Women couldn't vote and gained that right by convincing men. First slavery and then Jim Crowe was ended when freed slaves and oppressed citizens through their very plight and through their words convinced enough white people that their mistreatment was unjust. In 1830 or 1930 black people knew what they were being subjected to was evil. Changing it required that realization to be accepted by enough people in power.
Should poor white guys in West Virginia be for a more egalitarian system with more wealth redistribution? Yes, if only for self interest. Are they? Fuck no. But you know who wants to draft Warren for 2020 after reading about her latest speech in The Nation? Rich people.
When an idea is overly simplistic its derivations from truth and optimal strategy can be sometimes forgiven because its a decent heuristic. "Fuck rich people" is overly simplistic AND self-defeating.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I think Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, and Marco Rubio aren't millionaires after debt.
Martin O'Malley's net worth is actually $0.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I find it a bit ironic that in your argument about the influence of money in politics, you are defending a politician who was routinely criticized throughout his career for being too close to the financial industry, to the point that he was routinely said to be (D - MBNA).
(And yes, I like Biden as well, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore his past either. Every complaint that you would level at Clinton for being to close to finance would equally apply to him.)
I see no disconnect. If people want to cite Biden's ties to the financial sector as reason not to vote for him that's fine by me. The difference would be that that decision should be something they could decide in a primary system rather than him staying out because Wolf stuck with the candidate who gave him her ear.
And there we have it. This is not a rational distrust of Clinton, it's deep-baked cultural misogyny that Styrofoam still won't even admit.
Not sure what to do with this. Did Clinton face deep rooted sexism in her campaign? Of course, and it was bullshit as ever.
No.
I'm not sure what your complaint is, exactly.
Is it that Hillary secured funding from big donors before the primaries began?
Is it that candidates perceive big moneyed interests as being required to run a campaign?
Something else?
Bernie bought a $600K vacation home on Lake Champlain without a mortgage right after the DNC, a 320K house in Burlington and a DC townhouse plus a retirement annuity his wife has that is worth more than a million by itself.
O'Malley made 600K+ in 2015-2016 and the net worth is including his children's student loans he co-signed on. And 6 figures in annual government pension income would generally be valued at >a million. Its possible he's not technically a millionaire but I strongly doubt it. But if you want to include him as a major candidate maybe that's an exception.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In general, too much moneyed interests with influence in both parties, but naturally I'm more disturbed by it in the Democratic Part.
In specific, the bit Elki shared a couple pages ago where it looks like a major factor in Biden staying out of the race was a major donor siding with Clinton because she gave him attention and access he felt he deserved. I don't think that sort of thing is constructive for the party either in fact or image and that Democrats would have been better served by a three way race in the primary.
Yes, because at no point was she at the heart of a movement which said that human social development peaked in the eighties.
Biden didn't run. He didn't because he knew he'd lose. When he did in 2008 he couldn't come close to competing with Clinton, Obama or even Edwards.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Its funny how the reporter's or columnist's source is always the crucial behind the scenes figure that swung the fate of the election from his incredibly important wang.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes I know. Why he thought that is the point of discussion here.
It's almost like they were responding to three Presidential election losses.
He didn't run because Hillary Clinton was more popular than him, had beaten him in 2008 soundly, was able to leverage that strength into superior campaign staff and infrastructure and meant he wouldnt have Obama's support.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You're kind of chomping at two bits simultaneously here, which is why I'm asking for the clarification.
Is it that moneyed interests are influential and therefore important to court
or
that Hillary specifically went after said important interests?
I take it you don't put much stock in the Wolf story.
A time when she was serving on the board of Wal Mart. Look, you can take vast sums of money from the vultures who feasted on the aftermath of the great recession. And you can spend a disproportionate amount of time courting the hyperrich. But it's a politically naive manuever compelled by desire for personal enrichment and represents a basic misunderstanding of one's base.
And yes, Obama was sometimes a hypocrite on similar issues, but it didn't hurt him as much. Is that fair? It doesn't matter, this is politics.
I always figured that either it was because he was too rich for his own message, or that he had used legal, but embarassing for his message, tax deductions.
No, or more to the point, it doesn't say what you want it to say. What it showed was that Biden, unlike Clinton, was not actually committed to the actual process of preparing for a Presidential run (which isn't surprising, given that he was dealing with the passing of his son.)
Both are concerns but the second is germane to the thread. Some secret primary activity is to be expected, but when it gets to the point where the entire party infrastructure is lined up for one candidate before any votes are cast it undermines the primary.
Would there have been a serious contender against Clinton if an independent hadn't thrown his hat in?
Her time at WalMart is actually illustrative of her whole approach. She knew she couldn't fight them on their anti-union bullshit, but she worked to promote women and move them towards more environmentally friendly practices. She works within the system to get the best she can.
This is viewed as betrayal by some people on the left. It's dumb.
And yet you all would have cheered on the entry of a male candidate into the race that all these same criticisms could be leveled against as well.
So you agree that moneyed interests have large influences on elections, which is a problem but something we can set aside as given for the time being, but think that Hillary should have voluntarily forgone their influence because...?
Not to mention that she took the position because, as the spouse of an Arkansas politician who was just defeated and a mother, she needed to provide for her family.
Her opponent managed to avoid the fund raising tactics she used while maintaining competitive results.
And she was supposed to divine this how?