USPOL April: An outline of Reagan's face appears. She screams.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL April: An outline of Reagan's face appears. She screams.

«‹›181 »

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

In other news, Bill O'Reilly asked Donald Trump how he's going to sway black voters with an economic message when unemployed black people are "ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads." He's not being racist, he's just asking questions.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 16:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 16:07

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

as halfway crooks posted:

nice meltdown, netflix viewer

You see meltdown, everyone else sees an accurate analysis of that blog and of your posts.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 16:18

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Luigi Thirty posted:

In other news, Bill O'Reilly asked Donald Trump how he's going to sway black voters with an economic message when unemployed black people are "ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads." He's not being racist, he's just asking questions.

It's really something when Trump appears more reasonable and less racist than someone he's talking to.

Also,

Falafel Man posted:

I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship.
...There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' ...You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 16:22

Raerlynn: Oct 28, 2007; Sorry I'm late, I'm afraid I got lost on the path of life.

as halfway crooks posted:

wrong, by undiscussed he means "has not received non-partisan attention in a way that allows the author, a likely clinton voter, to understand why this issue is an issue", not "has not been on the news", this is obvious

Apparently not as obvious as you think because that's not the impression I got from his writing either. Also, I challenge you to find an arena where this can be discussed as "non-partisan". It's not possible because the GOP has poisoned that well so thoroughly that there's no hope of rational discussion. The very thought that attacking a former first lady of the opposing political party is not partisan politics is as ludicrous as calling the Earth flat.

as halfway crooks posted:

and i still dont understand it all but what about the thing about the clinton foundation employee sending memos including the names of active informants from his aol email to her private email that she had been repeatedly warned was a hack target, someone tell me why this does not reflect on her judgement / is a non-issue please

Which in hindsight turned out to be the only system that wasn't compromised. I don't think you fully appreciate how objectively loving terrible government IT is. I'll grant you that she wasn't playing 9th dimensional chess there and got lucky, but you don't need to be an engineer to look at a bridge that's crumbling and go "Nope".

as halfway crooks posted:

exactly
content you dont like? ignore it

but shame on you, shouting down actual content like you did (which that link undeniably is if only for the coherent timeline it presents of events), you should squirm and try to justify yourself but you cant

Yes goodness knows why we should give everything on the Internet the benefit of the doubt. It's not like this article was published on a free platform on a communication network renowned for bias, poor logic, and in some cases satirically wrong articles posted to highlight the insanity that is our country. In a related note, why won't CNN publish my article written in crayon?

as halfway crooks posted:

also what about the saudi arabia funding benghazi thing, you guys dont buy it? seems to tie in perfectly with just about every story that comes out about us relations with that shithole: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,480226,00.html

If you want to implicate a major country in engineering an entire uprising and attack on a US facility on foreign soil, your burden of proof is significantly higher than "gently caress those assholes".

To summarize, it is everything that is currently on major news media about Benghazi. A lot of allegations, speculation, lots of circumstantial evidence, and very little decisive evidence. Which is why when you bring this up, your source is rightly laughed out of the discussion.

The only thing the Benghazi thing has going is " it looks shady ".

# ? Apr 12, 2016 16:30

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

That blog post is dumb and non-lawyers should generally not write about the law as if they understand it.

Here are two excellent summaries of why Clinton isn't getting indicted. One is written by the former dean of Michigan Law, and the other includes comments from a number of well-respected national security lawyers (including my favorite, Steve Vladeck, who's spent more time thinking about nat sec law than I have being a lawyer.)

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a7b7_story.html

Note how actual lawyers (who aren't partisan hacks like Mukasey and Giuliani) say "nope".

Here's a bonus story (not by a lawyer, but by a competent reporter) that goes into the history of this type of prosecution and why Clinton's case isn't a candidate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

# ? Apr 12, 2016 16:55

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

A fresh take on the causes of this insane election (in which racism is at its heart):
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/u...61&kwp_1=304399

quote:

Americans are angry. That�s the sentiment that many believe is driving the 2016 election. They are angry because the rich are getting richer, the average guy is struggling and the government in Washington hasn�t done anything to stop the trend.

But it may not be that simple.

Data on the nation�s economic recovery, people�s reactions to current economic conditions and their overall sense of satisfaction with life do not suggest Americans are angry. In fact, historical measures indicate people are about as happy and satisfied with the economy and with their lives as they were in 1983, when Ronald Reagan told us it was �morning again in America.� So why does it feel more like a 1 a.m. bar brawl?

The answer may have more to do with political parties than economics, or at least with the interaction of the two. Today�s voters have sorted themselves and polarized into partisan groups that look very different than they did in the late 1980s. And members of each side like the other side less than before. Americans aren�t annoyed only by the economy; they�re annoyed with one another.

Objective economic conditions measured by the Federal Reserve suggest that the nation�s recovery began in 2010, when gross domestic product started to expand, unemployment started to fall and real disposable income began to increase. By 2015, the misery index � a combined measure of unemployment and inflation � was about as low as it had been since the 1950s, meaning an active demand for goods and services along with low unemployment and inflation. Most Americans seemed to appreciate this growth. Data on the Index of Consumer Sentiment, one of the longest-running measures of Americans� views of the economy, shows that by the end of 2015, consumer sentiment was as positive as it had been in the mid-2000s and mid-1980s. It was nearly identical to where it was at the end of 1983, when Mr. Reagan�s re-election romp began to take shape.

Even breaking the consumer sentiment data down by income levels does little to buoy the argument that Americans were pessimistic. From 2009-2015, the average gap in economic satisfaction between the upper and lower thirds of the income distribution was 13.7 points, much lower than it was during the Reagan years (21.3) and lower than the gap during the administrations of the elder George Bush (14.7), Bill Clinton (16.7) and George W. Bush (18.4).

As we entered 2016, Americans of all income levels felt positively about the economy, though by some indicators many people had not recovered. The employment-population ratio and median household income, for example, began to recover only in 2015. To get a sense of whether these economic factors were affecting the general mood of the nation in a way not captured by consumer sentiment, I examined one of the longest-standing measures of general happiness. Since 1972, the General Social Survey has asked people to �take things all together� and rate their level of happiness. The 40-year trend shows only modest changes � and may actually suggest a small increase in happiness in recent years. Describing Americans� mood as distinctively angry in 2015 elides this evidence. Americans were optimistic about the nation�s economy and generally happy � in fact, no less optimistic or happy than they had been historically.

But there was a sense in the fall and winter of 2015 of one change. Using analytic tools provided by Crimson Hexagon, I calculated the average monthly increase in the share of news articles about the 2016 election with the word �angry.� Between November 2015 and March 2016, the share of stories about angry voters increased by 200 percent. Some evidence suggests that the ire came from politics. When asked by pollsters about trusting the government, the direction of the country, American progress or the president, Americans were gloomier than their economic assessments might have predicted. Broken out by party, these pessimistic views reveal a growing partisan divide, one that�s been distilling around racial attitudes for nearly two decades.

The increasing alignment between party and racial attitudes goes back to the early 1990s. The Pew Values Survey asks people whether they agree that �we should make every effort to improve the position of minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment.� Over time, Americans� party identification has become more closely aligned with answers to this question and others like it. Pew reports that, �since 1987, the gap on this question between the two parties has doubled � from 18 points to 40 points.� Democrats are now much more supportive (52 percent) of efforts to improve racial equality than they were a few decades ago, while the views of Republicans have been largely unchanged (12 percent agree).

That Democrats and Republicans have different views on issues is not surprising. But recent work by Stanford University�s Shanto Iyengar and his co-authors shows something else has been brewing in the electorate: a growing hostility toward members of the opposite party. This enmity, they argue, percolates into opinions about everyday life. Partisans, for example, are more concerned that their children might marry someone of the opposite party (vs. people in Britain today and the United States in 1960). They found partisans surprisingly willing to discriminate against people who are not members of their political party. We�ve entered an age of party-ism.

Writing in The Washington Post, Michael Tesler, a University of California, Irvine, political scientist, explained that because the growing partisan divide is partly fueled by racial attitudes, partisans (in Washington and in the electorate) also take increasingly opposite positions on many racially inflected controversies. Some are political, like police misconduct. Others spill into areas we think of as more social than political, like sports, music and movies: about Academy Awards nominations, for example. Democrats and Republicans like each other a lot less now than they did 60 years ago, in part because they have sorted into parties based on attitudes on race, religion and ethnicity. These attitudes and emotions have been activated in the lead-up to the 2016 election. Add to this the fact that the country is becoming less white and that nonwhites are disproportionately more likely to be Democrats, and an explanation for the anger emerges.

The trend in the parties seem to be that they're coalescing around the idea of equality for minorities and that is translating or driving a wider divide between the two parties than previously experienced.

However, what seemed to get mentioned but never really expanded on is the media's role in driving this narrative. I think this cycle more than any other has highlighted just how powerful the media is in establishing a dominant narrative and in many ways, choosing the parties front runners. It'd be easy to translate that to other areas of society like minority issues and race relations. Basically gently caress the media.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:03

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Kalman posted:

Here's a bonus story (not by a lawyer, but by a competent reporter) that goes into the history of this type of prosecution and why Clinton's case isn't a candidate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

Yeah, that's a pretty good article. It also contains a nice rebuttal to all the folks who try to compare Clinton to Petraeus:

quote:

Without having permission to do so, Petraeus kept in his Arlington, Va. home eight �black books� containing highly classified �Top Secret/Codeword� information from his tenure as the coalition commander in Afghanistan and knowingly shared those books with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. In an interview with FBI agents, he acknowledged having an affair with Broadwell, but falsely stated that he�d never shared classified information with her.

Petraeus�s admission to Broadwell, in a recording, that he knew information in the books was top secret, and his lying to officials, are significant points of differentiation with the Clinton case.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:05

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

What law would she be subject to violating? I think most of the laws/regulations that would make what she did illegal happened after she left State. Not to mention that her predecessors including Colin Powell did virtually the same things.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:14

turn it up TURN ME ON: Mar 19, 2012; In the Grim Darkness of the Future, there is only war.

...and delicious ice cream.

1(i)(a) - The petitioner shall not in any way, shape, or form be or support the Democrat party while participating in an election.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:15

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

SquadronROE posted:

1(i)(a) - The petitioner shall not in any way, shape, or form be or support the Democrat party while participating in an election.

1(i)(b) - The petitioner shall not in any way, shape, or form be or support any candidate other than a senator from Vermont.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:24

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

SquadronROE posted:

1(i)(a) - The petitioner shall not in any way, shape, or form be or support the Democrat party while participating in an election.

A Winner is Jew posted:

1(i)(b) - The petitioner shall not in any way, shape, or form be or support any candidate other than a senator from Vermont.

Finally, it's Jim Jeffords's day to shine!

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:30

deoju: Jul 11, 2004; All the pieces matter.; Nap Ghost

Stultus Maximus posted:

It's really something when Trump appears more reasonable and less racist than someone he's talking to.

Also,

I know O'Reilly is a poo poo head racist, but part of me wonders if this wasn't the point. He seemed to be laying it on thicker than normal.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:44

Xanderkish: Aug 10, 2011; Hello!

Speaking of Hillary, Robert Reich, some dude my friends like who's really in the tank for Sanders, recently shared this article, titled totally-reasonably "Bernie Sanders Will Become Democratic Nominee Even If Clinton Leads in Delegates"

There's a lot of rhetorical sleight-of-hands in here, and tempted as I am to pull out the entire article, here's just a few parts:

quote:

As for a general election, it�s obvious to anyone paying attention that Sanders is the best chance to defeat a Republican. First, he�s not linked to an FBI investigation. Second, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by 16.5 points according to Real Clear Politics; six more points than Clinton.

quote:

When discussing the issue of why Bernie Sanders will still become Democratic nominee, even if Clinton receives more delegates by late June, let�s take things into context. Bernie Sanders was recently invited to the Vatican by Pope Francis to speak, while Hillary Clinton will be interviewed soon by the FBI. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have attended events to hear Bernie Sanders speak (100,000 people had attended by August of 2015), while Hillary Clinton can�t fathom releasing transcripts of paid Wall Street speeches. Bernie supporters recently rallied outside his childhood apartment in Brooklyn and Sanders delivered an electrifying speech at Bronx Community College. Hillary Clinton recently used a static noise machine to prevent the press from listening to her words at a Denver fundraiser, and this was after roping off reporters last year.

quote:

If Clinton survives the FBI and Bernie�s momentum, don�t expect party unity to rally all Democrats if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. The outdated poll showing 33% of Bernie Sanders supporters never voting for Clinton might actually be a greater number. I state the case in this YouTube segment for writing-in Bernie Sanders is Clinton is the nominee.

quote:

For superdelegates and Democratic Party bosses, it�s power that drives their votes, not principle, and Bernie Sanders is quickly becoming the most pragmatic choice in 2016. In an average of national polls, Bernie Sanders is now only about 2 points behind Hillary Clinton. With Sanders defeating Clinton in two national polls and close in every other national poll, my views on polling trajectory last September were more accurate than any other prognostication regarding Bernie Sanders and poll numbers.

quote:

Superdelegates won�t switch too soon, for fear of retribution from Clinton, but it�s coming, and Sanders will become Democratic nominee regardless of delegate count. Lee Fang of The Intercept and several other journalists have documented superdelegate ties to Clinton and lobbying, and if Clinton becomes nominee, these ties will be magnified by a disenchanted progressive base. The party bosses are loyal, but they�re not stupid.

An iceberg named Hillary Clinton threatens the system of honest graft that provides political power to so many establishment Democrats. Superdelegates and the DNC know that an irreparable fracture within the Democratic Party awaits, if Bernie Sanders isn�t the nominee. They�ll wait until the last second, especially until after the FBI�s decision, to side with Vermont�s Senator. Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination, not only because of a progressive political revolution, but also because it�s in the political interest of Democratic Party bosses.

Putting aside the rhetorical bullshit in here, what's the thread's totally singular hive-mind response to what this dude's saying? I suspect his talk about how the Democratic Party will rally behind Sanders because they will realize that he was their light all along is probably wrong, but I want to know how wrong it is.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:52

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

Xanderkish posted:

Speaking of Hillary, Robert Reich, some dude my friends like who's really in the tank for Sanders, recently shared this article, titled totally-reasonably "Bernie Sanders Will Become Democratic Nominee Even If Clinton Leads in Delegates"

There's a lot of rhetorical sleight-of-hands in here, and tempted as I am to pull out the entire article, here's just a few parts:

Putting aside the rhetorical bullshit in here, what's the thread's totally singular hive-mind response to what this dude's saying? I suspect his talk about how the Democratic Party will rally behind Sanders because they will realize that he was their light all along is probably wrong, but I want to know how wrong it is.

Robert Reich is only good at talking about dollars and budgets, hth.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:54

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

Speaking of O'Reilly

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:57

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Kro-Bar posted:

Robert Reich is only good at talking about dollars and budgets, hth.

He's also really good at it and was Secy of Labor under Bill, so he's a little more than "some guy my friends like."

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:58

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

FlamingLiberal posted:

What law would she be subject to violating? I think most of the laws/regulations that would make what she did illegal happened after she left State. Not to mention that her predecessors including Colin Powell did virtually the same things.

Reminder that the Bush administration used the GOP's mail servers for their email work for the sole purpose of being able to avoid oversight and FOIA requests, and said emails were (allegedly) nuked and gone forever. But Clinton having her own email server that was setup by professionals is somehow worse because...

deoju posted:

I know O'Reilly is a poo poo head racist, but part of me wonders if this wasn't the point. He seemed to be laying it on thicker than normal.

He's a wife beating racist shithead, actually. :eng101:

Xanderkish posted:

Putting aside the rhetorical bullshit in here, what's the thread's totally singular hive-mind response to what this dude's saying? I suspect his talk about how the Democratic Party will rally behind Sanders because they will realize that he was their light all along is probably wrong, but I want to know how wrong it is.

It's hilariously wrong because Sanders is leading less of a revolution than Ron Paul, since Ron Paul might've helped downticket races while Sanders, not so much. He's leading a trickle down revolution, starting at the top (POTUS) and somehow it'll just make the rest work.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:59

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

It's written be a guy named H.A. Goodman though? I am hungry and want to go to lunch, but I did a Ctrl+F for "Reich" and "Robert" and didn't get any hits...

# ? Apr 12, 2016 17:59

Xanderkish: Aug 10, 2011; Hello!

Boon posted:

It's written be a guy named H.A. Goodman though? I am hungry and want to go to lunch, but I did a Ctrl+F for "Reich" and "Robert" and didn't get any hits...

Robert Reich shared it, he didn't write it. Sorry for the confusion.

E: He just keeps popping up on social media and he's the font of like 75% of the optimistic Bernie posts I see shared.

Weird that he was part of the Clinton administration and is sharing these articles that all rag on Clinton hard, though.

Xanderkish fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Apr 12, 2016

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:00

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

The problem that Sanders has is that he's not nearly as well-enmeshed with the real heavies of the DNC as Hillary is and his election machine isn't nearly as well-developed. He has a lot of young people who are passionate about him, but I'm skeptical as to whether that passion will actually motivate them to show up and vote.

Reich's argument seems to hinge on the idea that Sanders' supporters are the future of the party and we should respect their desires and push Hillary aside to give them their shot. I'd be more amenable to the idea if I hadn't lived through the Bush years and if SCOTUS wasn't about to go through a once in a generation change.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:01

Dexo: Aug 15, 2009; A city that was to live by night after the wilderness had passed. A city that was to forge out of steel and blood-red neon its own peculiar wilderness.

I think Super Delegates shouldn't be counted yet, but Sanders probably has to take the pledged delegates lead before he could even think about taking enough Super Delegates to steal the nomination away from Clinton. Unless he is quietly doing some amazing behind the scenes poo poo.

1200ish to 1000ish IIRC

He would have to make up 200 delegates or so before the convention

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:02

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

Xanderkish posted:

Speaking of Hillary, Robert Reich, some dude my friends like who's really in the tank for Sanders, recently shared this article, titled totally-reasonably "Bernie Sanders Will Become Democratic Nominee Even If Clinton Leads in Delegates"

There's a lot of rhetorical sleight-of-hands in here, and tempted as I am to pull out the entire article, here's just a few parts:

Putting aside the rhetorical bullshit in here, what's the thread's totally singular hive-mind response to what this dude's saying? I suspect his talk about how the Democratic Party will rally behind Sanders because they will realize that he was their light all along is probably wrong, but I want to know how wrong it is.

It's as wrong as not celebrating Scalia's death.

First of all most of those super delegates are either in down-ballot races which Clinton has been stumping for and financially supporting or they are close friends with her. Secondly while "Sanders" polls well nationally, "Socialism" still doesn't and in much the same way that the GOP can't attack Trump from the left to expose his glaring weaknesses democrats can't attack Sanders from the right to expose that glaring weakness even though you could count on that playing a huge part of the general.

Lastly about the "FBI Investigation" bullshit... it's bullshit invented by republicans yet Sanders supporters seem to not be able to get enough of it.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:06

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

Xanderkish posted:

Speaking of Hillary, Robert Reich, some dude my friends like who's really in the tank for Sanders, recently shared this article, titled totally-reasonably "Bernie Sanders Will Become Democratic Nominee Even If Clinton Leads in Delegates"

The comments on it are pretty great.

quote:

It's very simple, choose Bernie or sever the Democrat Party. She's a Democrat in name only, Bernie is a much stronger candidate. Bernie plays to the GOP's weaknesses, Hillary plays to the GOP's strengths.

quote:

Not quite accurate. Independents, Republicans will not support Hillary. I am a Republican supporting Bernie and have made contributions to his primary campaign. If super delegates support Hillary which they may, I will vote for Bernie in the general election as a write in if necessary. The DNC can go the way of the GOP. I support Bernie not the Democratic party.

Republicans For Bernie has to be the most ridiculous thing concerning him. There's literally no way a normal GOP voter would dream of supporting Sanders.

quote:

I love the argument to vote for Hillary because none of Bernie's plans will pass through Congress.....to the I say no duh, but neither will Hillary's.....however Bernie knows the race is about we the people and once we the people get off our butts then anything is possible. How do I know this.....well read a history book it is the story of America

quote:

Bernie Sanders just won Wyoming, his seventh consecutive victory in this late primary season.

The corporate mainstream media keeps reminding us that for Sanders to win the majority of pledged delegates, he�ll need to win by a minimum of 56% in the remaining states � and that�s highly unlikely, they say.

What I�ve never heard reported with this information is the fact that in the last seven states his average has been somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%. In the last several weeks Hillary�s delegate lead has been depleted from more than 300 to down, close to 200. These are the only facts that can be reported about the current Democratic Presidential nomination race. Everything that might happen between now and the Democratic National Convention in July is pure speculation and anyone who tells you differently is attempting self-fulfilled prophesy.

I will admittedly engage in an attempt at self-fulfilled prophesy by saying that I hope and believe that Bernie Sanders can and will win the Democratic nomination. My hope and prayer is that by writing this it will inspire more people to support Bernie and help get out the vote for him in the states still to come. If we do the work well, now, he will win.

But, the pundits in the corporate news media will not inform you that they are attempting self-fulfilled prophesy as they relate to you the outcome of the nominating process as if it is already fact.

Hillary Clinton and her gang must be trembling just a little bit and wondering if the freight train heading to New York on April 19 can be stopped.

We read much about the word �momentum� these days without this term being defined by the news media. Sometimes it�s just brushed off as a meaningless, even imaginary variable in a Primary season. But, political momentum, especially in the case of the Bernie Sanders campaign, is a very real and quantifiable force in this process. There may have been times in past elections when the momentum of various candidates came and went as they were tested and voters lost interest after gaining more familiarity.

But, Bernie Sanders momentum has been one of sustained growth since he first announced his candidacy last June. And there�s really no sign or evidence that this trend is about to reverse itself.

It seems the more people get to know Bernie, the more they like him. The people in New York are generally well educated. But, the Bernie Blackout has been in effect in the big city as it has been everywhere else in the nation. So, many New Yorkers are just now beginning to get new information from his campaign, rather than through the Hillary-biased news media.

This points to the first important quantifiable aspect of Bernie�s authentic and sustained momentum.
A critical mass of name recognition and familiarity has now been achieved and the news media can no longer ignore his candidacy if it wants to maintain its own credibility.

Closely related to this is the second quantifiable aspect of Bernie�s very real momentum: his growing popularity with an expanding demographic base of support.
Since the first Super-Tuesday Sanders has progressively received a larger portion of Black, Hispanic and other non-White voters, women voters and older voters. If the momentum of this trend continues the potential for out-performing 56% really doesn�t seem so unlikely.

A third very tangible aspect of Bernie Sanders momentum is his powerful and growing fundraising juggernaut. Each time he wins a state his fundraising base grows more. The people who already have given $27, give again and the base continues to grow offering his candidacy a financially secure campaign that can compete strongly in all the remaining states.

Can Bernie Sanders win the Democratic Presidential nomination?

I think the more accurate question is �Can he be stopped?�

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:06

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Zeroisanumber posted:

The problem that Sanders has is that he's not nearly as well-enmeshed with the real heavies of the DNC as Hillary is and his election machine isn't nearly as well-developed. He has a lot of young people who are passionate about him, but I'm skeptical as to whether that passion will actually motivate them to show up and vote.

Reich's argument seems to hinge on the idea that Sanders' supporters are the future of the party and we should respect their desires and push Hillary aside to give them their shot. I'd be more amenable to the idea if I hadn't lived through the Bush years and if SCOTUS wasn't about to go through a once in a generation change.

The problem is that this is at least the second HuffPo article I've seen shared on Facebook which unskews the polls to "prove" that Bernie is really winning and so the superdelegates should go to his side to reflect the true will of the people or whatever even if the votes don't go his way.

So basically delusional bullshit is going mainstream in leftwing circles and I wish we could create a YCS for all of it everywhere.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:06

Grondoth: Feb 18, 2011

YCS is like a million times better than this thread, so it'd be an improvement.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:09

sexy fucking muskrat: Aug 22, 2010; by exmarx

At the risk of continuing a potential slapfight, didn't the whole "the Pope personally invited Bernie to the Vatican" turn out not to be true?

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:11

Sulphagnist: Oct 10, 2006; WARNING! INTRUDERS DETECTED

Dexo posted:

I think Super Delegates shouldn't be counted yet, but Sanders probably has to take the pledged delegates lead before he could even think about taking enough Super Delegates to steal the nomination away from Clinton. Unless he is quietly doing some amazing behind the scenes poo poo.

1200ish to 1000ish IIRC

He would have to make up 200 delegates or so before the convention

Yeah, any non-hack journalist is calculating pledged delegates only. The superdelegates are never going to go over to Sanders while Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates - why would most of them have endorsed Clinton in the first place otherwise? They're there as (among other things) a safety valve to make sure the leader in pledged delegates can be thrown over the top to avoid the Helvetica Scenario unravelling on the GOP side.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:11

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

Stultus Maximus posted:

The problem is that this is at least the second HuffPo article I've seen shared on Facebook which unskews the polls to "prove" that Bernie is really winning and so the superdelegates should go to his side to reflect the true will of the people or whatever even if the votes don't go his way.

So basically delusional bullshit is going mainstream in leftwing circles and I wish we could create a YCS for all of it everywhere.

Bit worried that the democrats are headed for a similar (if more civil) crack-up like the GOP is experiencing now after we burn through the last of Clinton and her people. What we really could use is an American version of Justin Trudeau, a young and charismatic leftie to carry the flag, but I don't see one standing in the wings.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:13

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

Zeroisanumber posted:

Bit worried that the democrats are headed for a similar (if more civil) crack-up like the GOP is experiencing now after we burn through the last of Clinton and her people. What we really could use is an American version of Justin Trudeau, a young and charismatic leftie to carry the flag, but I don't see one standing in the wings.

One (or both) of the Castro's?

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:17

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Zeroisanumber posted:

Bit worried that the democrats are headed for a similar (if more civil) crack-up like the GOP is experiencing now after we burn through the last of Clinton and her people. What we really could use is an American version of Justin Trudeau, a young and charismatic leftie to carry the flag, but I don't see one standing in the wings.

I think we probably are, but it's going to be more favorable. I mentioned in the Bernie thread at one point that I think it's going to be decades out yet - when the Millenials who are far more liberal than previous generations begin to take the lead in power. The oldest millenials are barely able to run for President, and it'll be at least 15 years before the majority of them make it into significant decider positions, and another 5-10 before they are the respected leaders of their various professions.

Who knows, you might see the growth of an 'independent' populace in that same span.

Boon fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Apr 12, 2016

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:18

Xanderkish: Aug 10, 2011; Hello!

Zeroisanumber posted:

Bit worried that the democrats are headed for a similar (if more civil) crack-up like the GOP is experiencing now after we burn through the last of Clinton and her people. What we really could use is an American version of Justin Trudeau, a young and charismatic leftie to carry the flag, but I don't see one standing in the wings.

To be fair, I didn't see Bernie Sanders showing up two years ago, but I'm not the most politically savvy, at least compared to others in this thrad.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:20

Ceiling fan: Dec 26, 2003; I really like ceilings.; Dead Man’s Band

quote:

Bernie Sanders was recently invited to the Vatican by Pope Francis to speak, while Hillary Clinton will be interviewed soon by the FBI.

Robert Reich talked himself into saying that the candidate closest to the Vatican is more of a leftist than the one being persecuted by the FBI using secret evidence. It's almost a shame the Republican contest is such a shitshow. Even the Democratic side is The Best Primary Ever.

Edit: Aw. Robert Reich only shared it. He didn't write it. Still a little funny.

Ceiling fan fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Apr 12, 2016

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:20

Agents are GO!: Dec 29, 2004

Zeroisanumber posted:

Bit worried that the democrats are headed for a similar (if more civil) crack-up like the GOP is experiencing now after we burn through the last of Clinton and her people. What we really could use is an American version of Justin Trudeau, a young and charismatic leftie to carry the flag, but I don't see one standing in the wings.

Deez Nutz 2024.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:23

Sulphagnist: Oct 10, 2006; WARNING! INTRUDERS DETECTED

Xanderkish posted:

To be fair, I didn't see Bernie Sanders showing up two years ago, but I'm not the most politically savvy, at least compared to others in this thrad.

Two years ago I would've expected someone like Biden to also throw his hat in the ring even if you'd told me Sanders would run (Clinton was a gimme), and Sanders wouldn't have had this strong a showing in a three-way race with three viable candidates unless the third wheel was just a rapidly aged clone of Hillary Clinton.

The anti-Clinton and pro-Sanders "vote" is being exaggerated by the two of them being the only game in town. (Sorry M'O'mentum fans.)

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:23

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Boon posted:

It's written be a guy named H.A. Goodman though? I am hungry and want to go to lunch, but I did a Ctrl+F for "Reich" and "Robert" and didn't get any hits...

H.A. Goodman is basically r/sandersforpresident the columnist. Every single one of his articles is massively pro-Sanders, usually at a reality-denying level.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:24

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Has anybody who ever played up a candidate's "momentum" not been a loving moron?

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:34

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Lemming posted:

Has anybody who ever played up a candidate's "momentum" not been a loving moron?

Eh, I think momemtum is a thing, I think there are people who change their votes based on how a candidate is doing. Also it affects media narrative, which I believe is very important.

Now to quantify it and assign tangible results to it, that's where the problem is.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:41

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Why is Clinton's former labor secretary so in the tank for Sanders in the first place?

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:41

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

gradenko_2000 posted:

Why is Clinton's former labor secretary so in the tank for Sanders in the first place?

Because he was a first hand witness to what sell-outs they are.

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 16:07

smg77: Apr 27, 2007

Lemming posted:

Has anybody who ever played up a candidate's "momentum" not been a loving moron?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiEs34TNY6w

# ? Apr 12, 2016 18:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL April: An outline of Reagan's face appears. She screams.

«‹›181 »