Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

i don't remember bernie himself complaining about (superdelegates)

And I don't remember Hillary herself claiming her nomination was "inevitable" or that she expected/deserved a "coronation," but nevertheless one hears those accusations leveled against her all the goldurn time.

you must have missed yesterday's NYT lovefest where Obama levels those accusations "against her"

big difference between random people on Facebook hyping themselves up vs. the New York Times

OK here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/17/1503088/-It-s-Over-Gandalf-We-Need-to-Unite-Behind-Saruman-to-Save-Middle-Earth-from-Sauron

what the hell are you even talking about

must have missed when Dailykos was a respected institution that led the nation to invade Iraq under false pretenses

champagne wishes and helicopter mom dreams

he has displayed very little skill to building a voting base outside of college students

mordy, this just isn't true and i think you can do better. sanders may not have built a winning coalition, and he may have dramatically failed to win over some super-major, important groups as much as he needed to... as i'd be the first to acknowledge! but he has not won nine states just on college kids, c'mon.

just took a business call with a client who, when I used the phrase "trump card" in reference to a late addition to our deliverable, said "DON'T SAY THAT NAME!"

people be nervous

just took a business call with a client who, when I used the phrase "trump card" in reference to a late addition to our deliverable, said "DON'T SAY THAT NAME!"

Time for a freedom fries style name change.

well that's the drumpf thing isn't it?

freedom card

i involuntarily flinched the other day when a co-worker said that something "trumps" something else, i think that word is poisoned now

From now on, I'll be blowing my own drumpfet.

I did that last week when I opened my mailbox and saw my electricity "bill"

you blew bill?

taking 90's nostalgia a bit too far there imo

Burning myself is totally ruined too.

Fortunately the thread has moved on but, argh, sorry, just to explain my impressions / thoughts in order:

1. The charge is made that Bernie (or rather Bernie's supporters) claimed that superdelegates are undemocratic.

2. The countercharge is made, hey, Bernie HIMSELF didn't say that, despite what some Bernie supporters may have said (or what some non-Bern-feelers perceive Bernie supporters to have said).

3. I think, hey, Hillary has gotten plentiful flak itt (and in its predecessors) for things she hasn't said, but that Hillary opponents believe she thinks, or believe her supporters think. For EXAMPLE the inevitability/coronation narrative - which I am not aware of her or any campaign person saying like ever. But which people are happy to accuse her and her supporters of thinking (here and elsewhere).

4. Abandoning this line of argument because what is the point anyways (not gonna change any minds), I thought "OK whatevs," and for entertainment's sake linked in a parody/satire that I thought was actually kinda funny, despite a mean-ish edge if one were to take it too seriously.

I don't know if that helps but that is what I was talking about. Absolutely have no trouble conceding that Facebook randos, NYT, and the sitting president speak with differing levels of authority if that makes things any better.

BUT I think it's worth saying that if pro-Sanders folks can ask us to distinguish the thoughts of Joe Sanders Supporter from the thoughts of the candidate himself, then surely Clinton deserves at least some of the same courtesy? No?

Joe Plumber Sanders

Joe the Sander, surely.

http://www.pantherzilla.com/images/thumb/bernie-because-fuck-this-shit.jpg

I wonder if anybody will be ever able to write accurately about the sociological effects & sampling bias of FB sorting algorithms affect political campaigns, American presidential ones or otherwise.

It kinda exacerbates the "well everybody _I_ know is talking about this" thing only instead of just a single Beltway, you have near-infinite Beltways, each constructed by each participant.

Plenty of shit has been typed about the perceived online behavior of a candidate's fans(or supporters of any range of zealotry) having a non-zero effect on voting patterns. Algorithm-sorting results in a positive feedback loop more annoying than jamming a Shure 57 into a speaker cone; you see all this shit on a topic because the stuff you post about is also posted about by all the contacts you've voluntarily networked with.

Hillary has gotten plentiful flak itt (and in its predecessors) for things she hasn't said, but that Hillary opponents believe she thinks, or believe her supporters think

i don't understand why you are concerning yourself with mind-reading the thoughts of potential voters of any of these people when there are millions of them. it just seems like an exercise in self-confirmation bias.

i could really care less what she says or thinks or what other people thinks she says or thinks. the way she votes is all that matters.

politicians will say anything to get elected. let's look at the hard evidence of actual votes. this shouldn't be controversial.

Patriot Act she voted for.
Iraq War she voted for.
Bank Bailout she voted for.

this is in the public record you don't need a crystal ball or a crystal poll.

I wonder if anybody will be ever able to write accurately about the sociological effects & sampling bias of FB sorting algorithms affect political campaigns, American presidential ones or otherwise.

It kinda exacerbates the "well everybody _I_ know is talking about this" thing only instead of just a single Beltway, you have near-infinite Beltways, each constructed by each participant.

I think it started with talk radio and cable news (esp the split in cable news resulting from Fox News). But it's interesting to think about how relatively short the span of time was when national television network news (and maybe to an extent syndicated print news and newspapers) created this probably largely false sense of The Nation.

Hillary's votes aren't in dispute.

Look, all I'm talking about here is the idea (expressed upthread) that we shouldn't confuse Bernie's supporters with Bernie himself. I agree, fwiw, and am just asking whether Hillary gets the same benefit of the doubt or not.

The Nation = the monoculture

we don't have one anymore

we don't have one anymore

Yeah, that's I mean. It's not just an insular community only talking to it(e.g. RW talk radio), it's _millions_ of insular communities, where the epistemology, as it were, of each participant is fed by a sorting algorithm.

Only talking to itself, rather

Bank Bailout she voted for.

I'm tired of people acting like the bank bailouts were some tremendous failure. They were not a failure. They weren't even really bailouts in the end. TARP booked a 15.3 billion dollar profit for the US Treasury. The effectiveness of TARP can certainly be debated, but what exactly was the alternative? Letting some of the largest banks in the country go into liquidation? Anyone who seriously thinks inaction was a superior alternative can't be taken seriously.

But facts never get in the way of a convenient talking point, even for people on the left.

otm

I can't abide by Patriot/Iraq War votes myself but I don't really hold the bank bailout vote against her.

people hate the banks

pfft they're lovely people
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mdfnua3faf1rxvqfko1_500.jpg&f=1

lol. I for one am a (relatively) liberal Democrat who works in the banking sector and I could never bring myself to support Sanders just because of his blanket condemnations of the "banks." The one thing Clinton has in her favor is her nuanced approach (i.e. engaging with stakeholders). Sanders' one-man bank wrecking machine approach isn't going to get anywhere. I mean, New York and Delaware are each represented by two Senators from his own party.

cool

oh it made a profit. nevermind then. what a great success for America.

thank god we didn't wait until there were, you know, real and substantial reforms written into the bailout, and just handed over a check. wouldn't want to not be taken seriously by someone who counts money for a living.

first suggestion I've seen of the House actually being in play in 2016, thx to GOP meltdown:
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9382

filing deadlines still haven't passed in a majority of districts

get on it Berniebros

Bank Bailout she voted for.
I'm tired of people acting like the bank bailouts were some tremendous failure. They were not a failure. They weren't even really bailouts in the end. TARP booked a 15.3 billion dollar profit for the US Treasury. The effectiveness of TARP can certainly be debated, but what exactly was the alternative? Letting some of the largest banks in the country go into liquidation? Anyone who seriously thinks inaction was a superior alternative can't be taken seriously.

But facts never get in the way of a convenient talking point, even for people on the left.

― Gatemouth, Friday, March 18, 2016 1:23 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So otm, I'm glad she voted for TARP. Problem isn't TARP, but lack of accountability (hearings, regulatory crackdown, etc.) post-bailout, Dodd-Frank not having stronger teeth, inability to close carried-interest loophole, etc.

Which of those do we have any reason to believe she supports or would have supported?

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/clinton-calls-for-end-to-carried-interest-tax-break/

Barney seems p confident about her support of Dodd-Frank

xp

Also..."but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html

Obviously ymmv as to whether these are sincere and believable statements, but she's on the record with them.

lol:
https://twitter.com/timothypmurphy/status/710932875256991744

Problem isn't TARP, but lack of accountability (hearings, regulatory crackdown, etc.) post-bailout, Dodd-Frank not having stronger teeth, inability to close carried-interest loophole, etc.

couldn't these have been, i dunno, written into the terms of the bailout? i'm no legislator mind you but.... isn't this the reason why people who dislike the bailout, dislike the bailout? the vague promise that congress would someday come back around to this and prevent another disaster of the deregulated financial market doesn't really cut it in 2016 ("I would also fight for...") any more than it did in 2009, right?

Bernie skippin' AIPAC

my man

perhaps relevant to consider how fast TARP was written and passed, iirc there was not a lot of time for tinkering. maybe there were amendments ready to go that were voted down, I don't remember.

xp

AIPAC is an abomination

BUT I think it's worth saying that if pro-Sanders folks can ask us to distinguish the thoughts of Joe Sanders Supporter from the thoughts of the candidate himself, then surely Clinton deserves at least some of the same courtesy? No?

NO HOW DARE YOU COMPARE THE SAINT TO THE DEVIL

Problem isn't TARP, but lack of accountability (hearings, regulatory crackdown, etc.) post-bailout, Dodd-Frank not having stronger teeth, inability to close carried-interest loophole, etc.

couldn't these have been, i dunno, written into the terms of the bailout? i'm no legislator mind you but.... isn't this the reason why people who dislike the bailout, dislike the bailout? the vague promise that congress would someday come back around to this and prevent another disaster of the deregulated financial market doesn't really cut it in 2016 ("I would also fight for...") any more than it did in 2009, right?

― never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino), Friday, March 18, 2016 2:30 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I actually agree, but I think it's relevant that TARP didn't pass in 2009, it passed in 2008 when GWB was president. It's far enough away now that I don't know what the then-sitting president would have supported, but I think that's a relevant limiting factor.