|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2016 23:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 23:05 Soularion wrote:On April 06 2016 23:01 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. That's with supers, I think. I don't see it as impossible that supers will change sides if Bernie wins a majority. Albeit if we remember 2008, it wasn't just delegates but the majority of voters as well. 538 said this about it last night: Most Sanders supporters are focused on whether their guy can close the lead Clinton has in pledged delegates between now and June. A narrow victory in Wisconsin tonight would be unlikely to put much of a dent in her current 220-delegate lead. But perhaps just as importantly, it wouldn’t put much of a dent in Clinton’s often-overlooked 2.5-million popular vote lead. Sanders supporters hypothesize that Clinton’s 469-to-31 lead in superdelegates will vanish if their candidate can win a majority of pledged delegates and claim the “will of the people.” But thanks to his reliance on low-turnout caucus states like Idaho and Washington, Sanders has won just 41 percent of votes, even though he’s won 45 percent of pledged delegates. Even in the very unlikely event that Sanders erases Clinton’s pledged delegate lead by June, Clinton would probably be able to persuade her superdelegates to stick with her by reminding them that she still won more actual votes than Sanders. Source It'll be a messy situation. A very, very messy situation. I think no matter who wins the Democratic party certainly loses a lot if Bernie wins delegates and loses the popular vote, although I think the popular vote will change too if he wins as big in California as he needs to in order for him to win by delegates. The thing about California is that it keeps getting talked about as if it is actually pretty reasonable to think Bernie will get those delegates. The conversation has become centered around an idea that is really outlandish to begin with. These California predictions are based on Bernie winning NJ, NY and a bunch of stuff that is straight up not happening. Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 23:13 Surth wrote:On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. How is believing in something that is rather unlikely creepy? whats creepy is how invested you all are in this cynical pseudo-realpolitik. It's not that they are keeping hope alive or something like that. These Bernistas are convinced that Clinton is toast. They look at how many likes the latest anti-bank Bernie meme got on Facebook and celebrate the revolution.
This is because, much like Bernie himself, they feel the act of whining is as good as fixing what they're whining about. Who needs specifics when you have sweeping rhetoric. Worked for Trump, worked for Mussolini, and its working for Bernie.
|
On April 07 2016 00:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 23:14 Kipsate wrote:
Is money even a large problem for Bernie? IIRC he has more money and spends more money then Clinton, is it possible to sustain it in the long term? He spends more, but does not have more than Hilary. He has more people donating but has much less money overall, and he is burning what little money he has much more heavily than her. (much like his plan for the presidency)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d0xSvd3.png)
As of March 20th.
Source
Remember that you get to keep most of the money you raise for future elections.
|
On April 07 2016 00:04 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 06 2016 23:14 Kipsate wrote:
Is money even a large problem for Bernie? IIRC he has more money and spends more money then Clinton, is it possible to sustain it in the long term? He spends more, but does not have more than Hilary. He has more people donating but has much less money overall, and he is burning what little money he has much more heavily than her. (much like his plan for the presidency) As of March 20th. SourceRemember that you get to keep most of the money you raise for future elections.
Thanks for the update, I had based mine on a blog post I read earlier in the year. Good to be corrected 
|
California is going to be extremely expensive. If Bernie wins NY, he wins the nomination imo. But if not, funding alone will be enough to lose California.
|
United States44439 Posts
On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point.
The assumption is that the supers won't overturn the popular vote and therefore aren't relevant. Supers can pledge support but they're not locked in and circumstances have changed drastically since they first pledged. The 67% is a red herring, he need only win the popular.
|
On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. .
That's how you get George W. Bush
A president needs to be intellectually able to lead, if necessary also against the population or advisers if those happen to demand outrageous things.
|
The difference between Obama and Bush (in my view) although they both were advisor dependent in foreign policy is how they got to where they were before the precidency.
One was part of a rigid political family in a party interconnected with people set up to do this thing, be a front, a compassionate conservative, that can be controlled and does what the people behind (GOP strategists) wanted.
Obama is a decent amount more self made, and found his way into politcs through community organizing which although ridiculed by his opponents gives him an other view on how to get into politics and what it can achive.
That is why i think his relation to advisers was different: he chose them more independently, where as the GOP chose Bushs advisers.
|
On April 07 2016 00:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. The assumption is that the supers won't overturn the popular vote and therefore aren't relevant. Supers can pledge support but they're not locked in and circumstances have changed drastically since they first pledged. The 67% is a red herring, he need only win the popular.
being that Clinton has the popular vote and the delegate vote as well as a track recording with having a positive work relationship with most of these delegates--I see very little reason they won't stay.
Superdelegates stuck with Obama last time despite the popular vote (which Hilary also had) because he had a good plan. Now they side with Hilary because not only does she have the popular vote, again, but she now has a solid plan.
|
On April 07 2016 00:50 puerk wrote:
The difference between Obama and Bush (in my view) although they both were advisor dependent in foreign policy is how they got to where they were before the precidency.
One was part of a rigid political family in a party interconnected with people set up to do this thing, be a front, a compassionate conservative, that can be controlled and does what the people behind (GOP strategists) wanted.
Obama is a decent amount more self made, and found his way into politcs through community organizing which although ridiculed by his opponents gives him an other view on how to get into politics and what it can achive.
That is why i think his relation to advisers was different: he chose them more independently, where as the GOP chose Bushs advisers.
Actually Obama chose's Bush's adviser Timothy Geithner.
Edit: You might or might not know that I think Obama's FP policies were generally disastrous but both against Clinton and McCain, even though Obama's inexperience with FP was touted, his policy was communicated clearly and in detail. In fact, I remember noting while watching debates that he outperformed his rivals. Despite inexperience, you can have a well-developed and fully articulated plan, it can just be a bad plan.
|
On April 07 2016 00:57 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:50 puerk wrote:
The difference between Obama and Bush (in my view) although they both were advisor dependent in foreign policy is how they got to where they were before the precidency.
One was part of a rigid political family in a party interconnected with people set up to do this thing, be a front, a compassionate conservative, that can be controlled and does what the people behind (GOP strategists) wanted.
Obama is a decent amount more self made, and found his way into politcs through community organizing which although ridiculed by his opponents gives him an other view on how to get into politics and what it can achive.
That is why i think his relation to advisers was different: he chose them more independently, where as the GOP chose Bushs advisers. Actually Obama chose's Bush's adviser Timothy Geithner.
To me it reads like a very twisted characterization of Geithner to paint him as mainly a Bush adviser.
To clarify i was talking about Cheney Rumsfeld Rice who took Bush for a ride or two (famously telling the CIA in 2001 "nah we don't care about al qaida we have other priorities (iraq)"....
edit:
i know that you hold this view, you dislike the strategic shift from atlantic to pacific which destabilized eastern europe to a degree and i agree that the ukraine crisis was handled badly by europe (which was basically in charge because the US retreated on that front)
do you consider that a fair (very cursory) summary?
i usually prefer less imperialistic policies over the adventurism and brashness of the Bush years, so that stark contrast paints my view a bit more positive in general
|
United States44439 Posts
On April 07 2016 00:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:44 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. The assumption is that the supers won't overturn the popular vote and therefore aren't relevant. Supers can pledge support but they're not locked in and circumstances have changed drastically since they first pledged. The 67% is a red herring, he need only win the popular. being that Clinton has the popular vote and the delegate vote as well as a track recording with having a positive work relationship with most of these delegates--I see very little reason they won't stay. Superdelegates stuck with Obama last time despite the popular vote (which Hilary also had) because he had a good plan. Now they side with Hilary because not only does she have the popular vote, again, but she now has a solid plan.
You think that if the Democratic party rank and file side with Sanders they'll overturn that outcome? The Dems have seen the Tea Party and they want no part of that shitshow. That's how you get a Tea Party.
|
On April 07 2016 00:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:44 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. The assumption is that the supers won't overturn the popular vote and therefore aren't relevant. Supers can pledge support but they're not locked in and circumstances have changed drastically since they first pledged. The 67% is a red herring, he need only win the popular. being that Clinton has the popular vote and the delegate vote as well as a track recording with having a positive work relationship with most of these delegates--I see very little reason they won't stay. Superdelegates stuck with Obama last time despite the popular vote (which Hilary also had) because he had a good plan. Now they side with Hilary because not only does she have the popular vote, again, but she now has a solid plan.
like Kwark said, it's not so much that people think super delegates will swap to change anything, it's like you should pretend they're not there to begin with and will just align with whoever wins the popular vote.
Yes Hillary is winning that right now but to turn that around you need less than to turn that around + super delegates. And frankly if NY goes to Sanders he looks really, really good. He's what, 200 delegates behind right now ? And pretty much all the southern states are already done (actually he's literally just 89 delegates behind Cliton/ behind to where he should be at according to fivethirtyeight) . I don't see it (winning NY) happening but who knows.
|
On April 07 2016 01:03 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:57 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 07 2016 00:50 puerk wrote:
The difference between Obama and Bush (in my view) although they both were advisor dependent in foreign policy is how they got to where they were before the precidency.
One was part of a rigid political family in a party interconnected with people set up to do this thing, be a front, a compassionate conservative, that can be controlled and does what the people behind (GOP strategists) wanted.
Obama is a decent amount more self made, and found his way into politics through community organizing which although ridiculed by his opponents gives him an other view on how to get into politics and what it can achieve.
That is why i think his relation to advisers was different: he chose them more independently, where as the GOP chose Bush's advisers. Actually Obama chose's Bush's adviser Timothy Geithner. To me it reads like a very twisted characterization of Geithner to paint him as mainly a Bush adviser. To clarify i was talking about Cheney Rumsfeld Rice who took Bush for a ride or two (famously telling the CIA in 2001 "nah we don't care about al qaida we have other priorities (iraq)".... edit: i know that you hold this view, you dislike the strategic shift from atlantic to pacific which destabilized eastern europe to a degree and i agree that the ukraine crisis was handled badly by europe (which was basically in charge because the US retreated on that front) do you consider that a fair (very cursory) summary? i usually prefer less imperialistic policies over the adventurism and brashness of the Bush years, so that stark contrast paints my view a bit more positive in general
Well, I agree that Bush was a GOP man through and through. I just happen to think that Obama was much more part of the Dem establishment than people like to recall. He was very good at building a consensus.
As for your summary, I thing you've got the broad stroke right. I can add detail, but that won't take away from the core concept. I might add that I think the pivot to Asia was a bit of a smoke-screen. The US hasn't actually done or achieved anything significant there. I think it was just a code-word for a more isolationist FP, or as Obama called it, a focus on domestic policy.
|
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party.
|
I'll put on my GH hat and post an article defending Sanders regarding the Daily News article (I'll admit, I'm unfamiliar with the author, so this might be a miss on my part, but it looks alright Edit: did some fact checking. The author seems a bit skewed, but a lot of people I trust from the Financial Times are retweeting the same article so I guess it has merit.):
Bernie Sanders gave some fairly normal answers on financial reform to the New York Daily News editorial board. Someone sent it to me, and as I read it I thought “yes, these are answers I’d expect for how Sanders approaches financial reform.” You wouldn’t know that from the coverage of it, which has argued that the answers were an embarrassing failure. Caitlin Cruz at TPM argues that Sanders “struggles to explain how he would break up the banks” and that’s relatively kind. Chris Cillizza says it was “pretty close to a disaster” and David Graham says the answers on his core financial focus is “tentative, unprepared, or unaware.” Tina Nguyen at Vanity Fair writes that Sanders “admits he isn’t sure how to break up the big banks.” This is not correct. Sanders has a clear path on how he wants to break up the banks which he described. Breaking up the banks doesn’t require, or even benefit from, describing the specifics on how the banks would end up, neither for his plans or the baby steps Dodd-Frank has already taken. Generally, I believe Sanders would benefit from taking the important points Clinton has made in expanding how to tackle the financial sector as a whole. But bad arguments are bad arguments, and the arguments against Sanders here are bad. ... Read the long article here.
Here' another interesting bit of analysis from the same author on the same site:
The idea that Hillary Clinton won on Super Tuesday by engaging centrist ideas is wrong. She is running on a $12 minimum wage, paid family leave, universal pre-K, expanding financial reform, higher taxes on the rich, and more. More important for this discussion is what’s missing. Imagine constructing a “food pyramid” of centrist ideas. None of the daily servings of deficit hysteria, Social Security cutting, and business-friendly accommodations have been present in this campaign. Clinton is running against cuts to Social Security in the form of cost-of-living adjustments or raising the retirement age, two centrist lodestars. There’s no talk about financial regulations decreasing our competitiveness and having to be rolled back. There’s no worry about a debt crisis that has never come; even Doug Elmendorf is arguing that the debt is not important now. There are no demands for a chimeral Grand Bargain, which had centrists destroying the Democratic Party in 2011, leaving us with the noxious sequestration. Read the rest here
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 07 2016 00:04 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 06 2016 23:14 Kipsate wrote:
Is money even a large problem for Bernie? IIRC he has more money and spends more money then Clinton, is it possible to sustain it in the long term? He spends more, but does not have more than Hilary. He has more people donating but has much less money overall, and he is burning what little money he has much more heavily than her. (much like his plan for the presidency) As of March 20th. SourceRemember that you get to keep most of the money you raise for future elections.
damn, I knew the money was high but this amount even for just primaries.
thx for the correction!
|
Ted Cruz' fundraising numbers are extremely impressive. Perhaps even terrifying. Raising that much on the GOP side in this climate is interesting to me. That would suggest the big money guys either have faith in Cruz to go all the way...OR...they just want to put some steam in the engine trying to derail Trump?
|
On April 07 2016 01:44 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 00:04 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 07 2016 00:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 06 2016 23:14 Kipsate wrote:
Is money even a large problem for Bernie? IIRC he has more money and spends more money then Clinton, is it possible to sustain it in the long term? He spends more, but does not have more than Hilary. He has more people donating but has much less money overall, and he is burning what little money he has much more heavily than her. (much like his plan for the presidency) As of March 20th. SourceRemember that you get to keep most of the money you raise for future elections. damn, I knew the money was high but this amount even for just primaries. thx for the correction!
Granted 2 billion or so should be spent on the election as a whole.
I would be very interested in seeing a breakdown on exactly what a campaign spends its money on outside of ad buys ofc.
Sanders has a very large favorability advantage over hillary. Its the only reason hes still in the race. The flips that his campaign is able to make in states by focusing them over a week or two is astounding. What should make the dems scared is if Bernie is stealing away all the activist types from hillary and them being unhappy in the general. Granted "for the love of god lets not have drumf" is a good rally cry for a normal election it might mean something.
|
On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party.
not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy?
|
On April 06 2016 22:38 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:20 puerk wrote:On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. are you saying that Krugman and Stiglitz (among the most qualified) did not understand the crisis? that would supprise me Krugman is seen as the most biased columnist on the crisis, and he's been showed to be waaaaay off the mark on the crisis (he even looked at Estonia's austerity plan and without knowing anything about the country said that it will destroy our economy. Didn't happen though. In fact, we seem to be one of the best recovered countries). There are a lot of modern economists who shun him, here's a nice piece for example. There's even a special page listing the false predictions he made: click here.
Its pretty simple: Krugman is a "Kenysian" because he realizes that stimulus is a great excuse for increasing government spending in the long term, which he favors.
On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy?
+Obamacare
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
