|
No mention of the show's week-off present? Team Cruz. Love her preemptive strike against false equivalency attacks.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Looks like even TBS knows how awesome Full Frontal is. They just ordered and additional 26 episodes of it. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/full-frontal-samantha-bee-gets-880377 quote:In response to news of the renewal, Bee said in a statement, "Stay crazy America, I'll be here all year!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
I wish she would go after Hillary more. I mean it's fine if she's a HRC supporter, but every politician deserves criticism, and I feel like she goes especially light on her. Anyway, the segment on Super Delegates was funny and informative. Great B segment, too. God drat I love Sam Bee. I think this show is so much better than any other show on TV. (And I quite like TDS.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:I wish she would go after Hillary more. I mean it's fine if she's a HRC supporter, but every politician deserves criticism, and I feel like she goes especially light on her. Maybe it's just that my friends are disproportionately Sanders supporters, but I feel like I haven't seen a single thing about her in months that *isn't* criticism. It's hard to think of an angle for critical comedy that wouldn't feel like a retread at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
"Hey, cool it on the online harassment. These aren't female gamers. They're actual people." Ohhh, how I missed this show. Glad it's back, I was worried it was on a serious hiatus. The Eddie The Eagle bit showing how easy it is to buy guns was great...and completely terrifying!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
I'm not sold on Full Frontal when compared to The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight. She is so far in the tank for democrats, and HRC in particular, and I don't have a problem with my fake news personalities being liberal (they all are). The republicans and conservative movement is a rich treasure trove of comedic material, and it certainly deserves to be treated as such. My problem is I don't think Sam Bee has made an effort yet to become an equal opportunity offender. Jon Stewart was very liberal, but I feel like he enjoyed ripping into democrats just as much as republicans with his mantra of "be suspicious of bullshit" and if nothing else it gave him the chance to appear bipartisan. There is plenty to work with but I don't think Sam Bee has any interest in exploiting it. I understand it's still early in her first season so I'll wait and see, but this is the direction it seems she's heading in. Her bit several episodes where she made fun of the Hillary/Bernie debate was very weak in its attacks, but last night's bit about superdelgates really sealed it. She starts off admitting that super delegates were a DNC response to a prevent the voters from picking as their nominee a non-establishment approved candidate like they did in 1968, which is true. But then she goes on to justify it by saying that because in 2008 the superdelegates switched their vote to Obama, and that we shouldn't worry because they won't be used to subvert the will of the voters. Even admitting that the GOP would give their left nut for super delegates right now for just the same exact reason. Anyway, it felt like a weak defense of the system instead of what it really is, an emergency "break glass in case of non-establishment approved candidate" device.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:I'm not sold on Full Frontal when compared to The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight. She is so far in the tank for democrats, and HRC in particular, and I don't have a problem with my fake news personalities being liberal (they all are). The republicans and conservative movement is a rich treasure trove of comedic material, and it certainly deserves to be treated as such. Sometimes I just want to see someone rant against Republicans, who cares about appearing bipartisan? The Daily Show is currently too mild in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:I really don't want this show to be a false equivalent South Park "truth is in the middle" nonsense. She's also only got about 20 minutes a week to say her thoughts. "She's only got about 20 minutes a week" was the point I was going to make. When time is that short, why waste it on material that isn't important to you personally as the show runner? It's not FF is the only political show on the air. Jon Stewart had 5x as much time per week. As far as the super delegate thing goes...I have to admit I personally don't find it particularly interesting at this stage of the game. If Sanders can win outside of small white states and makes up a sizable chunk of his 2.4m popular vote deficit, I could see a majority of super delegates defecting of their own accord (if they haven't been put off by constant abuse from misguided Sanders supporters). They're interested in having a candidate who can win. As far as changing the process for future elections, if people who are willing to put the time and effort into working towards that make it happen, great. So far I trust the outrage to last no more than 3 months.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:As far as changing the process for future elections, if people who are willing to put the time and effort into working towards that make it happen, great. So far I trust the outrage to last no more than 3 months. Every four years the popular but loosing candidate has a bunch of supporters who suddenly learn about Super Delegates and focus their attention to how those Super Delegates are totally going to steal the election. Then the convention happens, the Super Delegates don't steal anything and everyone forgets about them. Until the next time, when have you heard about these outrageously undemocratic Super Delegates? In 2008 Obama supporters bucked the trend by complaining about them while being the front runner, because they were totally how Hillary was gonna gently caress the world over. Super Delegates will will always favor the front runner at the beginning of the race and by the end will be squarely lined up with the winning candidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Considering Bernie Sanders polls better against Trump and Cruz then Clinton, I think the super delegates and party actors would be disappointed, but ultimately fine with a Sanders nomination. However there may come a day when democrats find themselves with an extremely divisive front runner polling poorly outside the democratic primary. That will be the day when we see if super delegates respect the will of the voters or not. Just because the republicans are in trouble this year, doesn't mean it will be smooth sailing for dems in the future. And just because super delegates haven't effected a presidential election yet, doesn't mean there isn't a reason to be concerned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:Considering Bernie Sanders polls better against Trump and Cruz then Clinton, I think the super delegates and party actors would be disappointed, but ultimately fine with a Sanders nomination. These types of theoretical head-to-head match ups typically have low statistical power. Nate Silver has written a lot on this topic if you wish to read about it. The Nastier Nate posted:However there may come a day when democrats find themselves with an extremely divisive front runner polling poorly outside the democratic primary. That will be the day when we see if super delegates respect the will of the voters or not. Isn't this the exact situation where the super delegates are supposed to "save the party" from the divisive nominee and go against the popular vote? If not then, when?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Trump is a compelling argument for super delegates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:These types of theoretical head-to-head match ups typically have low statistical power. Nate Silver has written a lot on this topic if you wish to read about it. Voter's don't like being told their votes are wrong and that the party elders need to save them from making a terrible mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:Voter's don't like being told their votes are wrong and that the party elders need to save them from making a terrible mistake. If a majority of the voters don't vote for the leading candidate, then it's reasonable for party leaders to step in. If you can't secure a majority of the delegates come convention you don't really have much of a leg to stand on when decrying the undemocratic selection of the other guy when arguing for your undemocratic selection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Trump is a compelling argument for super delegates. And Cruz, everyone in the GOP both know they are losers which is why the are pushing Ryan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:My problem is I don't think Sam Bee has made an effort yet to become an equal opportunity offender. Was it one of her off week sketches that basically said, "We'll call out the Democrats when they start being as horrific as these Republicans have been"? It really hit it on the head- the Republicans are advocating really terrible poo poo. The Democrats have procedural flaws, and as much corruption as anyone, but the Republicans are aggressively smearing themselves in bigoted hardliner poo poo. It's idiotic to value being an "equal opportunity offender" in these circumstances! And in terms of super delegates specifically, I'm really glad she said what she did. I've heard all sorts of freaking out about super delegates like they're stealing the election from Sanders... which is just stupid. He's losing because he's not getting enough votes, not because of party shenanigans. Rail against how unfair campaign financing is and I'll be right with you. Rail against super delegates and I'll roll my eyes. That's not the issue. They're going to have to actually do something hosed up like support Clinton when Sanders is actually winning before they become something worth even paying attention to. Harassing them to support Sanders at this point is actually undemocratic (in addition to being stupid), and worth mocking. Disclosure: I'm a passionate Sanders supporter, but I'm not going to wrap myself in team spirit and say stupid stuff (or harass random people) just 'cause I think it'd help my side or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Gyges posted:If a majority of the voters don't vote for the leading candidate, then it's reasonable for party leaders to step in. If you can't secure a majority of the delegates come convention you don't really have much of a leg to stand on when decrying the undemocratic selection of the other guy when arguing for your undemocratic selection. What does this mean? Who is the leading candidate if it's not the person the majority of voters voted for? EDIT: Oh! Unless you mean if they win in delegates but not the popular vote? In which case, why not ditch the delegate system and go 1 person 1 vote?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
No, we're talking about the probable Trump scenario. What happens when your field is so split that a candidate doesn't win a majority of votes, and somehow has the most delegates even if only 30-40% of your party have voted for that person?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
I'm not too concerned about superdelegates, but I ultimately disapprove of them. Their role in 2008 was not too pivotal or controversial, but the media mostly uncritically included them in the head-to-head horse race. If it was common sense that the majority of so-called pledged delegates was the real magic number, rather than a majority of delegates including the supers (which is far from the case), then I'd disapprove of the idea of superdelegates less as the emergency power brokers. But even in that scenario, I think she's overplaying the role of super delegates as rational political actors. If I remember correctly, in 2008 Hillary's superdelegates (with few exceptions) only switched to Obama when Obama clinched the nomination and Hillary endorsed him; not unlike how many of Hillary's "pledged" delegates cast their convention vote for Obama as part of the whole "rally around the nominee" thing. And in theory, in the John Edwards scenario, Edwards' own delegates could also have dumped the presumed nominee if he became too big a liability. It doesn't have to be party insiders. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Apr 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:No, we're talking about the probable Trump scenario. What happens when your field is so split that a candidate doesn't win a majority of votes, and somehow has the most delegates even if only 30-40% of your party have voted for that person? Yes, they're there to prevent Contested Conventions and to swing the party away from potential Trumps arising from a drastically split spread of delegates resulting in a total assclown riding a plurality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
But when super delegate endorsements are counted in the delegate horse race scoreboard, that kind of defeats the purpose of them acting as last minute power brokers in a tight nomination race, because they can just endorse early on. Any delegate can decide to change their vote at the convention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:But when super delegate endorsements are counted in the delegate horse race scoreboard, that kind of defeats the purpose of them acting as last minute power brokers in a tight nomination race, because they can just endorse early on. No, delegates can't just change their vote at the convention because that way lies madness. Super Delegate totals should absolutely be counted separately, if at all, in the media. I do agree with that. Generally the media has been much better about separating out super delegate and pledged delegate totals this cycle as opposed to previous cycles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
"Pledged" delegates aren't absolutely bound to vote for who they are pledged to vote for. They obviously were chosen to represent voters who have supported their candidate, but like I said they, like the supers, can break from who they are supporting. They don't even need to have their candidate "release" them. Yes it could be "chaos", but I believe there isn't a rule forbidding such chaos. Once again with the Edwards hypothetical; if the presumed nominee implodes from a scandal after securing a majority of delegates (let's say; it's a majority well above the number of supers) but before the convention, the super delegates won't be able to do much poo poo anyway. The pressure will be on the pledged delegates to either dump the presumed nominee or to go through with a suicide candidate. Granted, it doesn't have to be the all of the candidate's delegates, just enough of them to deny the nomination to the person they're pledged to. The whole entire point of the delegate horse race is to see who passes the majority threshold, to ensure that there is a general understanding that someone "won" the nomination already. If someone clinches the nomination before the convention; it's almost always the case that many of the delegates for the non-winner, both regular and super, vote for the winner on the official convention vote anyway. In that sense, super delegates are functionally not too different from pledged delegates. Their special ability to "stop" a Democratic version of Trump isn't special. But their existence always adds controversy and a slight whiff of questionable legitimacy to the nomination process. Edit: Also the "rule" that the supers should always vote for the winner of the majority of pledged delegates was largely an invention of the Sanders campaign so they can stay in the game. This unofficial social contract wasn't really spoken about in 2008; I don't remember it existing. Granted, it's a nice unofficial rule that I don't find disagreeable but it's largely untested since there hasn't been a nomination race that forced the question. The idea is far from settled as Sam Bee has suggested. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
For the Democrats, pledged delegates are not technically bound. However the campaign can change out anyone they want at any time if they think they won't vote for them at the convention. Which makes them all but bound, while still allowing for last minute thwarting of Old Man Jenkins' charade as the ghost of evil FDR. Super Delegates are free to vote for who the gently caress ever, and are in no way bound to vote for the person with the most pledged delegates. However, Super Delegates are by bast majority elected Democratic officials(Congressmen, Senators, Governors) with the minority being party officials and the super minority being ex-Presidents. The only Super Delegates immune to the backlash of DNC '68 Electric Boogaloo are the 6 guys who have already been President/Vice President. There is very little incentive to overrule the pledged delegates, and given the ability of pledged delegates to flip the script whenever they want not much room to do so either. There are certainly ways that the process the Democrats have set up could lead to mass chaos and the cackling loser being crowned nominee. To get there you need to have some crazy rear end poo poo happen similar to either this years Republican tire fire or the chaos theory in practice events of 1968. Which means that concern over the Super Delegates going rogue is vastly over stated and is itself causing more damage to the party than the Super Delegates are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:"Pledged" delegates aren't absolutely bound to vote for who they are pledged to vote for. They obviously were chosen to represent voters who have supported their candidate, but like I said they, like the supers, can break from who they are supporting. They don't even need to have their candidate "release" them. Yes it could be "chaos", but I believe there isn't a rule forbidding such chaos. Not absolutely bound in what sense? I know that according to US law for example, they are not bound. And beyond that, the RNC can make whatever rule changes they see fit, so again in that sense they're not absolutely bound. But according to the bylaws of the RNC, they are absolutely required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged in the first round, are they not? This is my understanding from the news I read, and mostly from listening to the Fivethirtyeight election podcast. Edit: I realize this is somewhat dependent on the state the delegates are representing, but I'm pretty sure most delegates who are absolutely bound to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged in the first round. And as a matter of fact, even in the second round, many of them remain pledged. That is, a subtotal proportion of the delegates becomes unbound in the second round, and then a larger subtotal proportion becomes unbound in the third round and so on until they are all unbound (which may actually be the fourth round). Pillow Hat fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Republican Delegates are required to vote for a given candidate for a certain number of ballots as determined by their state delegation. A handful are unbound and that is where Trump is going to try and make up the numbers if he's short. Democratic Pledged Delegates are not actually required to vote for a given candidate by any specific bylaw. However, unlike with the Republicans Democratic candidates can make sure that their delegates are people they believe are loyal to them. The ability to change delegates at near will makes the pledged delegates effectively bound. Obviously there can be shenanigans and if a candidate pulls off their Mission Impossible mask to reveal the clattering visage of Rick Scott their delegates can vote against them. Which is how it would be possible for Edwards' delegates to abandon him if he'd still been running when his affair became public while also making it exceedingly unlikely Hillary's delegates are suddenly going to feel the Bern on the convention floor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Democratic rule where a candidate can change a pledged delegate before the convention. But my main point is that the superdelegates aren't magical problem-solving delegates empowered somehow differently from pledged delegates. Sam Bee implies they're the people who'd resolve the chaos if the Democratic Convention suffered a hypothetical John Edwards or Donald Trump problem. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
The outtakes of Katie Couric at the end of the episode this week are adorable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
God drat it I love this show. Every week cements the supremacy of Samantha Bee over and above every other late satirical news show. I was glad she addressed the Bernie supporters. Although I am a strong Bernie supporter, I understand why other progressive people support HRC over him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:I understand why other progressive people support HRC over him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:I have absolutely no idea why they do. It's funny because I have no idea why they don't!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:I have absolutely no idea why they do. Also, free tuition has to be the dumbest, most regressive "progressive" policy I have seen in my life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Well, that's it for this thread, someone start a new one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
She didn't go for the low hanging fruit with the bro angle. I'm not sure if we were supposed to laugh with or at the supporters. Or if the comedy angle was that those supporters were frustratingly not as unsympathetic as her persona wished they were. Or were they? I guess saying Hillary Clinton is corrupt or untrustworthy could be read as subtle sexism, but they seemed more pro-Bernie than anti-Hillary. Was the supporters uncritically repeating many of Sanders' talking points supposed to reveal something about them? Whatever. I didn't feel to strongly about it. Like, we knew what we were supposed to get out of Sam's talk with the educated Trump supporters. Seems like they were still trying to figure out the Sanders bit was both while filming it and editing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:She didn't go for the low hanging fruit with the bro angle. It was endearment-condescension. She wasn't trying to wreck them like the Trump supporters, just tease them a bit for being naive. You were supposed to laugh at their obliviousness while also finding it cute. You could tell she still liked them because the clip ended with one of the supporters making a joke at their own expense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
The Sanders supports came off as Paultards in there devotion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Sam Bee really really really likes Hillary Clinton and is mad that someone challenged her coronation, this should not be a surprise this many episodes in. I just laugh at the other 2/3s of the show, she'll be able to mock actual sexism and poo poo when Clinton is running in the general election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
The joke was as much at the expense of her own cynicism. Not like, a rejection of that cynicism, just kind of making light of it too. Her style isn't to derisively mock, even the Trump panel was clearly an attempt at civility and honestly understanding them. It was clear that she agreed with what the Sanders supporters wanted, she just didn't see how it was possible. I liked the exchange: "How will Sanders do what Obama didn't?" "He'll keep people motivated and involved when he's in office." "Have you met people?" She showed the Sanders people pretty fairly and effectively explaining what the idea is- an idea she's kind of pointed out before with her whole "this is your fault for not voting in 2010!" bit- and she surrounded it with her own comedic cynicism and hopelessness. All in all it was a pretty good bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I felt like the point was that she understands the Bernie fever and likes the idea but just doesn't find it realistic. But maybe I read it too favorably since I'm a Bernie supporter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:Yeah, I felt like the point was that she understands the Bernie fever and likes the idea but just doesn't find it realistic. But maybe I read it too favorably since I'm a Bernie supporter. She was already a (fairly new) correspondent on the Daily Show during the whole Howard Dean thing, so she's been here before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 16:08
|
|