Conventional Mealy Mouths: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 5

rmde @ that shit

I'm not asking Bernie to "fund" other candidates (as Morbz said) but there's so many other things that have real tangible results that he could be doing that, for some reason I can't really determine, he is not

xp

ya time warner (cnn owned) is a top 10 contributor of the hillary campaign

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

so propaganda machine has been in full effect even before any leaks

An image taken from the benchmark twitter account:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfYfYGkWwAAjS19.jpg:large

Karl thank u for factchecking

just for the record, and no excusing these people for being lazy/assholes, but if sanders's voters had voted for the dem judge at the same rate clinton's had, she still would have lost

When Wisconsin Democrats gathered for their annual “Founder’s Day” dinner Saturday night, Clinton made a pitch for herself. But she took time to declare, “There is no place on any Supreme Court or any court in this country, no place at all for Rebecca Bradley’s decades-long track record of dangerous rhetoric against women, survivors of sexual assault and the LGBT community.”

“No to discrimination, no to hate speech and no to Bradley,” Clinton told the enthusiastic crowd.

The next night, at a rally in Madison, Bernie Sanders told thousands of cheering supporters, “I hope that a large voter turnout on Tuesday will help elect JoAnne Kloppenburg to the Supreme Court.”

Karl thank u for factchecking

oh, np. i'm surprised there aren't more rumors! it's funny, because i've seen several people reference a tweet by Süddeutsche Zeitung that said "Just wait for what is coming next" regarding potential American names, and speculating that prominent U.S. politicians will be implicated. but it turns out that there's a bit more to that:

In response to speculation about the dearth of American names, Stefan Plöchinger, an editor at Süddeutsche Zeitung, said in a tweet on Monday, “Just wait for what is coming next.” After other reporters picked up on this message, Plöchinger clarified that he wasn’t referring specifically to the United States. “No, it just means: relax,” he said. “What’s in the files will be published without fear or favor.”

lol
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/panama-papers-why-arent-there-more-american-names

https://twitter.com/nancycordes/status/717824134655377408

Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims. He said maybe @HillaryClinton shld apologize to Iraq War victims.

heyo

reading dem primary twitter threads is a fun way to pass the time sometimes. there are all kinds of people in this crazy world of ours

The next night, at a rally in Madison, Bernie Sanders told thousands of cheering supporters, “I hope that a large voter turnout on Tuesday will help elect JoAnne Kloppenburg to the Supreme Court.”

Odd this does seem like an endorsement.

I asked @BernieSanders if his plans to break up big banks lack details. "That’s not true...we are very clear about what we want to do" (1/3)
(2/3)"...which is what Sec Clinton does not want to do. Maybe that has something to do w/the fact that she's gotten $15m fm a WS super pac"
(3/3) "They must be broken up...There are a number of ways to do that. I have excellent legislation that can do that."

i mean, this is getting into parody territory right?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/this-is-what-donald-trump-would-look-like-without-his-fake-t

Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims.

this is just gross. ugh.

I hear Trump in the background reading Dr. Seuss-like poems--about Lyin' Ted, I think. Politicians always come across really well when they do this sort of thing.

Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims. He said maybe @HillaryClinton shld apologize to Iraq War victims.

― goole, Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:58 PM (Yesterday)

bernie's answer strikes me as an entirely fair response to a really gross question

he should've given the Sam Kinison Answer. "MOVE AWAAAAAY from the WATERRRR!!!!"

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialJoanBaez/posts/10154052092404417

Bernie just locked up that all-important Joan Baez endorsement!

thank heavens rubio's out, just figured out his name is an anagram for "Birac Uboma"!

lol remember in 2008 and 2012 when people would type the words Barrack HUSSEIN Obama capitalized like so

I guess the media attempts to gin up some controversy between Sander and Clinton are bearing fruit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/07/sanderss-incorrect-claim-that-clinton-called-him-not-qualified-for-the-presidency/

Apologies if someone has posted this already.

When I compare the decisions Bill Clinton made to the decisions Barack Obama made in near-identical circumstances, it’s not a close call. Barack Obama did not bring in Dick Morris to advise him. Obama never signed anything as odious as the Welfare Reform Bill turned out to be. Obama did not give free rein to Wall Street to deregulate financial banking and the packaging of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives.

Barack Obama also didn’t cheat on his wife with a White House intern, lie about it under oath, and force his political allies to rally to his defense. He didn’t fund the DNC with Chinese money or otherwise violate the spirit or the letter of campaign finance law.

Some of these decisions and failings were particular to Bill Clinton and don’t necessarily reflect on his wife. Others were defensive postures that made some sense at the time but don’t really apply to the current political climate. What’s clear in retrospect is that Bill Clinton acted one way when he had congressional majorities and another way when he did not. Liberals liked the Clinton with congressional majorities a lot better than they liked the Clinton who was fighting Gingrich and Dole and Starr. The important point for today is that context matters a lot, and so does character.

Clinton did not come into office looking to sell out the New Deal. He enacted Family Leave and tried to give everyone health care. Insofar as he punched some hippies to get elected, that coalition needed a bit of a reality check. They have the numbers to win a presidential election today, but they did not have the numbers in 1992 or 1996. By 2008, the same demographics that were so weak in 1988 were strong enough that Michael Dukakis might have won. Today, I’m pretty sure Dukakis’s coalition has grown big enough that he would win.

x-post: Yeah, someone took the bait:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/07/sanders-rips-clinton-as-not-qualified-and-the-dem-race-goes-nuclear/

What on earth is he doing at the moment?

Well, it's pretty obvious that Sanders needs controversy a lot more than Clinton does right now, since if the status quo continues she'll win handily.

nicey nice tone is what the cabal wants

“She has been saying lately that she thinks I am quote-unquote not qualified to be president.

“Let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her Super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest money. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

“I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs.”

i understand what he's saying, but he couldn't set it up any better for clinton's counter-response: "Senator Sanders says I'm not qualified *her audience boos at Sanders* He must not have heard about... *lists dozens of things she's done in the government*"

he's basically setting her up to talk about her accomplishments for the next few days

... but everyone who is impressed with the length of her resume is voting for her already.

it reminds me of some of the audience questions during the debates that were from obvious supporters of a particular candidate. "Senator Cruz, some critics say that you're not respected enough by the establishment to get things done in washington. yet so many people in this country are disappointed with the establishment and looking for something more in a leader. how would you respond to that?"

bums me out that the dem contest is going here

xpost yeah i suppose, but i'm just saying as far as attacks go, it's one of the easiest to respond to. if she chooses to respond to it, it probably won't win her many new supporters, but it's certainly not going to hurt her

She has been saying lately that she thinks I am quote-unquote not qualified to be president

plus, on top of that, she did not say that she thinks he's *makes quote signs* quote-unquote "not qualified" *makes more quote signs* to be president

obv it's hail mary time

Basically at this point I've gone from "I will happily vote for whichever Democrat wins" to "they both still represent my interests so I will vote for either of them but I will be very irritated about it"

bums me out that the dem contest is going here

― marcos, Thursday, April 7, 2016 9:46 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a bummer, but isn't 'here' exactly where Hillz dragged it the last time she ran?

But if he becomes too controversial, how does he think the superdelegates would react? He needs to win them over afterwards, and... How? He could perhaps have a claim through a positive campaign on changes, but if he wins with a couple of delegates? Well "Silly stuff in Nevada, the fact that he won more caucuses than primaries, oh, he ran too negative a campaign which Clinton wouldn't do, and she was spending a lot of her time campaigning for down-ticket." A bunch of excuses will come from the superdelegates for not switching.

superdelegates will vote for whomever has the most pledged delegates so i don't think he really needs to worry about alienating them

I doubt that's true.

i don't see much "bummer" about where it's "gone." Sanders' campaign is meaningless if he's more/less interchangeable with Clinton.

bums me out that the dem contest is going here

― marcos, Thursday, April 7, 2016 9:46 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a bummer, but isn't 'here' exactly where Hillz dragged it the last time she ran?

― My Whole Existence Is Flan (Old Lunch), Thursday, April 7, 2016 10:56 AM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

THANK you

Sanders is devolving into a small child: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/07/sanders-clinton-continue-fierce-feud-over-qualifications/?tid=sm_tw

“She has attacked me for being unqualified, and if I am going to attacked for being unqualified, I will respond in kind,” Sanders told reporters. "I'm not going to get lied about."

He added: “If Secretary Clinton thinks that I just come from the small state of Vermont, that we’re not used to this, well we’ll get used to it fast. I’m not going to get beaten up, I’m not going to get lied about. We will fight back.”

[...]

“Let me clear: This is not the type of politics I want to get in,” Sander said,. But, he added: “I’m not going to get beaten up. … She has attacked me for being unqualified, and if I am going to attacked for being unqualified, I am going to respond in kind.”

Nah, 2008 was way, way worse. This is like a picnic lunch.

(Thankfully, Mark Penn is nowhere to be found in this campaign.) xp

bums me out that the dem contest is going here

― marcos, Thursday, April 7, 2016 9:46 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a bummer, but isn't 'here' exactly where Hillz dragged it the last time she ran?

― My Whole Existence Is Flan (Old Lunch), Thursday, April 7, 2016 10:56 AM (19 minutes ago)

more or less. while i think sanders' comments on whether HRC is "qualified" are kind of dumb, he's not really saying anything that he hasn't said before, and they're not personal attacks, just the usual stuff about donations and bad votes. 2008 clinton otoh was calling into question obama's viability by bringing up things about his upbringing and his church pastor

stifle Fred

@ggreenwald
Oh my, Mr. Sanders, I do declare: your tone is now so very gauche. #DemPunditColumn: from those red-baiting him & blaming him for Sandy Hook

His refusal to play that role meekly & gratefully is rude. I hope the civility lectures from Dem pundits fix him.

How are those quotes "devolving into a small child"? clickbait post headline

xposts

'Well, she started it!"

I was relatively agnostic about Clinton until her behavior during her '08 run, which was frankly appalling. So, yeah, really thrilled to see her strapping in to the Spitemobile once again.

you're right Frederik, Bernie Sanders should leave baseless allegations against his character and ability unchallenged

lol at this being "going negative," and counting as some kind of major shocking letdown by sanders. he's been loose with their "disqualify" language and i agree that was sloppy but, come on, have you seen an election before? you'd think he'd was doing a trump "make fun of your spouse's appearance" thing, or dropping a willie horton ad, or at the very least the more typical thing in our elections, the reason why people get so burned out on "negative campaigns" which is to say, like, running an ad like "Hillary Clinton (full color photo of Hillary in the Senate) SAYS she's for American families... (sinister music, picture fades to black and white and slow-mo as big red text flashes on the screen) but she voted AGAINST the American Family Act" (that this ad doesn't mention was primarily a pork barrel project for South Dakota and in fact was intended to eliminate tax breaks for families and instead subsidize gypsum mining companies). "Hillary Clinton: against American families, against American values - - - against America." etc.

i mean if anybody's done that kinda thing - - - and in general i would say the Dem race has been honestly as mild as i can remember on this front - - - it's been Clinton, when she was going after Sanders's "voting against the auto bailout" (that is, when it was bundled with the blanket bank bailout). i realize we've talked about that particular issue and we can disagree on sanders's voting choice, but the point is that it was misrepresented and clinton kinda clearly gave up that line after sanders patiently explained himself and then won michigan resoundingly. but like that's really been it? everything else, yeah, they've said things about what they don't like about the other person, and what they disagree with, but probably a lot less than they could say, and they're generally in the category of reasonable things you might bring up as a reason to vote for you instead of the other person. it's "negative" in that it's not an ad strictly about how great a candidate YOU are but i don't personally find it to be offensive or damaging to the public conversation or w/e.

Not that invested in who's got the high ground, but a) yes, 2008 was worse, and b) this time I'm much more surprised--I thought the Democratic side would get less contentious past a certain point, not more.

this "qualified" argument is so dumb. the entire election is about which candidate you think is more qualified - that's the subtext of EVERYTHING. why do either campaigns think making the subtext the text will be compelling to people? "oh, i've been following this election closely but i never stopped to think about who is more qualified. now that i've considered it i am changing my mind."

i tried

American Politics 2016: BLM intruders in Philly / Cleveland

I think there's already a general politics thread, and to extend this one, you've got to specify "________________________: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 6."

prob time for general election pt 1 tho

lessor of two weevils

I think here:

Curb Your Authoritarianism? The 2016 Conventional Wisdom Thread (Elections, Part 6)

?

I know a guy that's going to vote for Gary Johnson

i know several but they're all republicans.