a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

that's the way I interpreted it too, Mordy.

national legislation isn't going to happen, this is going to be a state-by-state thing

that's what i heard about gay marriage too but things accelerate

no national legislation about gay marriage passed

unless you count the DOMA

We talked to Sen. Sanders about making sure that people of color, who have been disproportionately criminalized in the informal marijuana economy, do not get locked out of the emerging legalized marijuana economy because of criminal records tied to possessing or distributing marijuana.
Sen. Sanders asked for additional clarity on some key points and noted that he had not heard this argument in this way before and would consider it.

kudos for BLM's approach, which seems intelligent and systematic but wtf that Sanders, a lifelong liberal politician, had not considered that marijuana laws might be used as a tool for racial subjugation. i am pretty sure that's taught in first year law, no?

― a llove spat over a llama-keeper (forksclovetofu), Monday, October 19, 2015 6:04 PM (10 minutes ago

i'm a little confused as to what the "emerging marijuana economy" even refers to. the ability to buy weed? sell it? be prescribed it? the privilege of indirectly benefiting equally from an economy that may be boosted by marijuana regulation? i'm sure bernie is familiar with the racial aspects of the war on drugs. the question just seemed sort of oddly specific

anyway that was a good read and it's good that its led to some tangible changes in platforms/debate soundbites

ftr this is in Colorado's Retail Marijuana Code, re: rules about who can get a license to sell weed:

The Applicant can prove that he or
she has not discharged a sentence for a conviction of a felony
in the five years immediately preceding his or her application date;
7.
The Applicant can prove that he or
she has not discharged a sentence for a conviction of a felony
pursuant to any state or federal law regarding the possession, distribution, manufacturing,
cultivation, or use of a controlled substance in
the ten years immediately preceding his or her
application date or five years from May 27, 2013, whichever is longer, except that the State
Licensing Authority may grant a license to a Person if the Person has a state felony conviction
based on possession or use of marijuana or marijuana concentrate that would not be a felony if the
Person were convicted of the offense on the date he or she applied for a license;

some Fox News correspondent said Biden was running afaict
--Οὖτις

Seems like a foregone conclusion that he's running. Why would he wait if he's not going to run? And everyone seems to think it hurts Hillary and not Bernie but I've given up thinking Bernie can win, so I say burn the whole thing down. Not voting for HRC, that's for sure

yeah i'm sure those laws exist, and they should be rethought (if probably not discarded), but it's such a specific, minor instance of a downstream effect of the war on drugs that it's no surprise that someone wasn't even familiar with the particular issue

i mean the whole discussion they had with him was on major issues like broken windows policing, the wealth gap, the general militarization of police -- the ability of people with drug histories to get weed retailer licenses in colorado was just kind of a random road to go down

xp

sure

but otoh it's p obvious legal weed's gonna be huuuuuuuge business, so best to get these laws written right at the start, so that institutionalized racism isn't just automatically incorporated

I mean when legal weed passes in other states, they're going to turn to the states' who did it first for examples, this is how policy (both good and bad) proliferates

def

good point

my theory is that unless some horrible thing comes out of the woodwork to make clinton unelectable, a biden run would mostly be a belly-flop on his part. in theory he could split the "centrist" vote and put sanders w/in reach of the nomination, but more likely he just won't get much traction at all.

^^^

Biden's only constituencies are (a) the media (b) GOP operators who believe in Segretti-style ratfucking.

I heard some wag say that he's the party's insurance policy should something improbably horrible emerge from the FBI hearings, but if that's the case, he has all the time in the world.

i think there are filing deadlines coming up very soon, like first week of november. he can't really think some devastating revelation will come out of the sham hearings, but i suppose he could be waiting to see if hillary's popularity drops dramatically anyway, like if she just comes off really bad or something. it still seems ridiculously unlikely to me. he can't think he has a great shot, so he'd be entering a race only to sink like a stone... not really a dignified way to end your political career when you could just retire as a well-liked vice president.

seems totally pointless for him

if people dont like hillary because shes a wall street sellout why the fuck would they prefer someone who is WAY WORSE

I guess thats the theme of the entire election

(weeps)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/clinton-and-sanders-campaigns-neck-and-neck-on-diversity-hir?utm_term=.wlxaaAj51#.kdJeeljYo

i'm a little confused as to what the "emerging marijuana economy" even refers to.

― k3vin k., Monday, October 19, 2015 6:19 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they're basically implying (or trolling) the point that there are lots of middle-class to wealthy white kids in CO and on the West Coast not just smoking but legally making money off of pot while urban eastern and southern black kids get put in jail for same* without, as is typical, having much recognition of what various levels of government do let alone proposals for the federal executive. not that they're required to present a NPRM or anything, but the movement does tend a bit inchoate.

*never mind that lots of white drug users or especially runners get put in jail too, of course not to the same extent though query whether that would be true if more of those white users lived in areas with substantial violent or property crime. see also TroyGoode #dumbjambanfanlivesmatter

no

as is typical!

politics ain't benbbag

if people dont like hillary because shes a wall street sellout why the fuck would they prefer someone who is WAY WORSE

b-b-but he has a great tan!

without, as is typical, having much recognition of what various levels of government do let alone proposals for the federal executive.

Presidents have considerable political influence beyond the confines of the federal executive branch. They can be quite instrumental in setting the framework of a political debate. This seems so easy to grasp, I wonder how you could have missed it.

I thought the ...beyond the bully pulpit wasn't necessary to add, but I should have considered the willfulness that you in particular seem set upon of late. Fact is, though, that the bully pulpit is not in the main what they're looking for. And that the movement hasn't said much directly to the present holder of the office.

the bully pulpit is not in the main what they're looking for

In regard to the issue of black participation in the emerging marijuana market being disproportionately precluded by past use of drug laws against the black community in particular, what evidence do you have that BLM is looking for anything other than a clear buy-in by the candidates to their pov on this issue?

the question about marijuana legalization kind of contains its own explanation? the issue is that this new, legal economy is opening up in fits and starts, and if people with marijuana raps on their record are locked out of it, that will (a) be bullshit and (b) be particularly unfair to the black community for a myriad of reasons. Οὖτιc otm about getting the laws right early in the process.

you could also see it as a way of gauging the candidates' understanding of, and sympathy with, that aforementioned myriad... and yes maybe to give someone the opportunity to come out and say there needs to be an amnesty on pot crimes, with widespread cancellation of outstanding warrants and fines as well as jail time. that would have to play out state-by-state, but national politicians speaking up on it could move the conversation along a lot.

"they're basically implying (or trolling) the point that there are lots of middle-class to wealthy white kids in CO and on the West Coast not just smoking but legally making money off of pot while urban eastern and southern black kids get put in jail for same* without, as is typical, having much recognition of what various levels of government do let alone proposals for the federal executive. not that they're required to present a NPRM or anything, but the movement does tend a bit inchoate."

This is not at all what they are saying

xpost

Prop 47 passed in California last year, allowing some people convicted of felony possession to apply to change their sentences to misdemeanors. I thought there had been some effort by Jerry Brown to release a lot of the prisoners convicted of marijuana possession but I can't find anything now.

For me the most interesting part of the Black Lives Matter platform was their outright opposition to community policing. I understand that policing has historically been misused against black communities, especially in but not limited to the South. And I get that many times there may be other community actors better suited to resolve issues than the police. But I'm not sure I agree that community policing is largely limited to communities of color in practice, and I'm not really sure I entirely disagree with the concept of policing in principle, if it's done right.

Oh hey, you know that whole thing about CNN deleting the unscientific straw poll showing that online people thought Sanders won the debate? Total conspiracy theory nonsense.

lol

the webb dropping out press event is at 1pm, and he'll probably announce an independent bid.

i still have no clue what he is doing

@ggreenwald
WashPost on how relieved Canadians are that their "endless" election (11 weeks) is finally over --> massive envy

almost time to panic!

"I don't think Trump can withstand 10,000 points of smart negative in Iowa and New Hampshire," says one veteran Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. "It would force him to spend money. That's when this starts to get real for him." ("Points" refers to gross ratings points, a way of measuring TV ad buys; 10,000 points would be a really big buy, meaning the average viewer would see an anti-Trump ad many, many times.)

There is no central anti-Trump conspiracy. But one group that would like to play a leading role in taking him down is the Club for Growth. In September, the Club ran two ads against Trump in Iowa — 2,000 points — with one arguing that Trump is not a true conservative and the other hitting Trump for his support of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision on eminent domain.

"We primed the pump with our ads in Iowa," says Club president David McIntosh. "We did some polling afterward. The ads flipped Trump from first to second place among caucus-goers and put a dent in his approval rating."....

The triggers for the anti-Trump onslaught would likely be: 1) if next month arrives with Trump still in the lead, and 2) if Trump begins airing his own ads. "Once that starts, you'll see a lot of people saying we've waited long enough," notes McIntosh.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2574454

I can't see how trump wins iowa, mostly because it seems like some byzantine nonsense that his 'staff' wont be prepared to handle

then again maybe he'll surprise all of us!

I can't see how trump wins iowa, mostly because it seems like some byzantine nonsense that his 'staff' wont be prepared to handle

^^^

Initially I thought Trump's mouth would sink him, but now my bet is on his inability/unwillingness to navigate party's infrastructure, court "superdelegates" etc.

ie the non-democratic reasons

this feels a bit like asking "who will stop the Carolina Panthers from winning the superbowl"
they will themselves, most likely.

publicly funded elections where all the delegates are popularly elected? both Trump and Sanders might have a shot.

Nearly all Republican unpledged delegates, as I understand it, are RNC people or state party chairpersons. If they've even crossed the Trump team's radar, they have to have been written off completely - he has no chance of winning over any of them, unless he started winning actual primaries so lopsidedly that the establishment candidates were already effectively marginalized anyway.

However, the superdelegate count for Republicans is a much smaller fraction of the number of delegates total than it is for the Democrats, where there are around seven hundred superdelegates (including all sitting senators and representatives, past presidents, etc.) out of 2,300 delegates or so total. Which is why there was a lot of attention put on them in the long 2008 primary contest! Here's Silver breaking down the GOP's convention votes in 2012:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/02/25/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0225-delegatemath1/fivethirtyeight-0225-delegatemath1-blog480.png

Just kinda riffing here: One way of explaining this difference between these numbers has to do with what those delegates are supposed to do: superdelegates in the Democratic party are an establishment check on the possibility of a presumed unelectable candidate inching up towards 51% of the delegate count with a ton of second-place primary wins, since all Democratic primary delegates are awarded proportionally for each state. The GOP has been inching towards proportional primary payouts over the last few years - almost everything was winner-take-all in 2008 - and currently uses a weird system where early-primary states (first two weeks of March, but NOT the four February contests, I think) must be awarded proportionally (to keep the field open, air the party conversation, etc.)... whereas states after that mark can be whatever they want, or something. I actually don't understand it at all but it seems like maybe the superdelegate numbers still reflect the winner-take-all model, which is meant to quash fringey insurgents and cement a front-runner quickly, thus not requiring the superdelegate check. The all-proportional Dem system is, at least in theory, more vulnerable to a race going all the way to the convention; the whopping pile of superdelegates is, again in theory, there to freeze out whichever of candidates A and B is less "establishment," but this has never actually been tested and anyway it's unclear what the reaction would be if they ended up choosing the candidate that had effectively lost the primaries.

I don't know what this means for Trump but it would be great to see an article that really breaks down each state's voting plan and how many delegates are up for grabs (plus bracketing out non-binding caucus votes). My sense is that anything winner-take-all is good news for Trump; the system wasn't designed with the assumption that someone totally unacceptable to the party would actually be leading (by pluralities, but leading) early on. That's supposed to be the role of the party's anointed heir; the fear was presumably that proportional contests would enable the fringe minority! So in an odd flip, it may be that the proportional contests become the party's safety net, yielding a buffer of anti-Trump delegates who can later commit to whoever emerges as the establishment figure. But who the fuck knows.

have we discussed hillary's polling bump from the debate?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/20/hillary_clinton_won_the_debate_scientific_polls_show.html

proven... by $cience!

CNN/ORC poll tells a slightly divergent story (where I've collapsed the 'someone else,' 'no one,' and 'no opinion' answers into "other")

Pre-debate poll (9/17/-9/19): Clinton 42% Sanders 24% Biden 22% O'Malley 1% Other 9%
Post-debate poll (10/14-10/17): Clinton 45% Sanders 29% Biden 18% Webb 1% Other 7%

Pre-debate poll, no Biden: Clinton 57% Sanders 28% O'Malley 2% Other 13%
Post-debate poll, no Biden: Clinton 56% Sanders 33% Webb 2% O'Malley 1% Other 7%

(http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/cnn-orc-poll-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democratic-debate/index.html , pages 10-11)

So if these are representative, both Clinton and Sanders have gained recently, possibly due to the debate, but Sanders has actually seen a bigger bump, both in the Biden and no-Biden universes. Clinton actually lost a little ground in the non-Biden universe, and benefits on paper from the Biden universe, where he seems to be playing something of the "other" role. This is hard to untangle from whether voters' interest in Biden was altered by his absence at the debate or a general sense that he is not going to really run. The debate did seem to move a few people out of the "other" column into picking someone, particularly in the no-Biden universe (as if Biden is acting as an "other" surrogate when he is included).

However, all of the changes are within the 5% margin of error so it could also be that the race hasn't changed whatsoever, or that Clinton actually lost support across the board - basically everything I'm typing here, and anything else we read analyzing a single poll, is basically meaningless. This is where once really hankers for 538 aggregating the poll results, etc....

(Well, Sanders's gain in the non-Biden world is 6%, but still, pretty close to the margin.)

ralph nader has opinions about bloomberg

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-21-reasons-michael-bloomberg-can-be-elected-president-in-2012.html

ralph nader has opinions about bloomberg

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-21-reasons-michael-bloomberg-can-be-elected-president-in-2012.html
--1999 ball boy (Karl Malone)

First gay president

biden needs to fuck off at this point