I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

http://sadydoyle.tumblr.com/post/138860699828/progressive

this is a pretty fantastic essay

― k3vin k., Monday, February 8, 2016 7:42 PM (8 minutes ago)

i can't quite get on board w/ the bit about bernie "repeatedly running to keep feminist women out of office," but otherwise yeah this was a good read

DJP the continuing power of the Tea Party to affect local elections and cumulatively to affect national politics is proof that Americans can and do get engaged in a sustained way on specific legislative issues if they feel a strong connection to them

I can't get on board with most of it because it basically is pretending that opposition to Clinton and support for Sanders has more to do with Clinton's history and policy positions than her gender.

Sanders' entire platform depends on leveraging a consistently engaged and energized voter base into putting pressure onto legislators to support his agenda , which assumes a) that enough Americans care to be constantly engaged with the civic process and can sustain themselves while doing so, and b) that this energized body of voters will unilaterally support his platform. In a reality where half the country is supporting the conservative platform and has put into the majority a political party that wants to strip voting rights, restrict reproductive rights and does not believe climate change is real, I don't see how this actually works.

^The crux right here. Somebody, whether within the Sanders campaign or outside it, needs to provide some sense of what this would actually look like. It's one thing to mobilize all the bright young things to pull for you to win a prize (the Presidency, yay), where in the process they get to mingle, dream together, and strategize with a singular goal in sight. It's quite another to get people excited about "will you please write a letter to your Representative, and, oh yeah, here's a template you can use if pressed for time".

We spend two years trying to get these people elected to represent us, but once they're elected they disappear into the belly of the beast, and we recede into the background. If we saved even a fraction of our mental resources to figuring out the post-election mechanisms of participation and two-way communication, these "victories" wouldn't ring as hollow.

The Limbaugh wing of the GOP seems to have figured some of this out, certainly vis-à-vis Congress.

i think it's a terrible essay

xps the sady doyle piece

I can't get on board with most of it because it basically is pretending that opposition to Clinton and support for Sanders has more to do with Clinton's history and policy positions than her gender.

Wait now what now?

i think he meant the reverse?

who was the second-most popular Secretary of State in history

stopped reading

xps -- If one's first and foremost concern is to advance the progress of feminism over the next couple of decades, then I would quickly concede that Hillary Clinton is one's obvious choice among all the candidates currently running for president. That would seem to be sady doyle's most important issue and her unavoidable conclusion, and as long as this is one's primary focus, there's no way to disagree. But as soon as you step outside that framework the choice becomes much muddier.

The Sady Doyle piece supports my theory about Hillary Clinton representing a kind of personal narrative feminism rather than a collective feminism for her biggest supporters. I'm not saying there's no value in that, but I prefer the take of Liza Featherstone who said (paraphrasing) "Hillary says that when she is president, fathers will be able to tell their daughters they can be anything they want to be. I think fathers will be able to tell their daughters that when their daughters have healthcare, income supports, access to affordable education..." And I have daughters, and I genuinely think those things are bigger potential problems for them than whether they "believe" they can be anything.

obviously the author and i disagree on some crucial points but i thought the way she used that debate question hillary got to underscore how women are treated in the workplace and how that might lead them to feel solidarity with her was well-done

It sounds like a lot of what she is saying is "As a woman, I relate to Hillary because I have been in similarly embattled positions in my own career for subtly sexist reasons, even coming from ostensibly progressive people/environments." I think that's legit, but I don't quite feel like it's enough of a reason to vote for her in particular over sanders in particular.

Pro tip: It's not a "Vote for Hil" piece.

xp I don't know that 'subtly' is really the word?

When asked to consider the differences between Kunin and her Republican opponent (who was also running against her; Sanders was a third-party candidate in those days) he called them “Tweedledee and Tweedledum.”

So that was the answer. Feminism didn’t matter. Her record of fighting for women’s equality, and of working to secure women both legal protection from discrimination and representation in their own government — well, that was all “women’s issues,” not real progressivism. In his view, there was no difference between a feminist ERA supporter and a Republican. In fact, Kunin’s actual gender politics were totally erased, so as to argue that her supporters were guilty of the “sexism” of voting for her “because she was a woman.” Because, in the end, that was all she was. Just “a woman.” Not a progressive. Not a feminist. Not even herself. Just female.

sanders, as a 3rd party socialist running against a democrat, says democrats and republicans are all the same, which gets spun in this long and unattributed-quote-filled paragraph as an explicit attack on feminism

young voters' distaste for HRC has nothing to do with her gender. it's her Romney-esque inability to connect, be spontaneous, or defend her shitty record (voting for the Iraq War & Patriot Act, being against gay marriage until 3 years ago, and then lying about it). The Steinem & Albright comments are heaven-sent for Sanders supporters.

Wait now what now?

― Andrew Farrell, Monday, February 8, 2016 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I meant the reverse as Morbs noted.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

oh fuck that shit

Aimless writes "Bernie... is making the voting strength of the progressive wing apparent, just as victories by people like Santorum and Cruz make the voting strength of the evangelicals apparent to Republican pols."

And then k3vin writes to Οὖτις: "your cali vote didn't matter tho lol, so don't sweat it."

Well so IF the value of Berniemania is that it shows there is non-ignorable voter engagement behind a position (even if it is not a winning position), then All Votes Matter, surely?

Personally, I've never liked that "oh, well, the result was a foregone conclusion in my state, so who cares if I flush my vote for Nader or write-in Mickey Mouse or The Rent Is Too Damn High Guy." All votes, even the ones on the losing side, communicate which views/candidates have support and which don't. People will look closely at results, and those results will affect any future candidates' decisions to run/not run, embrace/not embrace a given position, etc.

I don't mean to conflate different speakers in what is obv a freeform discussion, but it's a bit weird to see the sentiment "Cali is going blue no matter what, so whatevs" so close to "vote Bernie so that even if he loses, true progressive voices are understood to be a force that Dems ignore at their peril."

goole, the paragraph before that is pretty crucial context (and a source for the quotes) - but the point there is that you don't need to explicitly attack something to erase and sideline it?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-staff-shakeup-218955

grain of salt because it's politico, but, did Mark Penn ghostwrite this?? wtf

At the heart of problem this time, staffers, donors and Clinton-allied operatives say, was the Clinton’s decision not to appoint a single empowered chief strategist – a role the forceful but controversial Mark Penn played in 2008 – and disperse decision-making responsibility to a sprawling team with fuzzy lines of authority.

...

Her advisers were also frustrated by having to play roles they hadn’t been hired for and were ill-suited for. From the beginning, Benenson was frustrated that he was forced to split his time between defending his boss on emails and defining a path for her candidacy. Clinton, meanwhile, longed for a chief strategist in the Mark Penn mold who could take on a more expansive role than playing pollster.

Pro tip: It's not a "Vote for Hil" piece.

― Andrew Farrell, Monday, February 8, 2016 3:17 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

how the fuck is it not a vote for hil piece?

@davidaxelrod
When the exact same problems crop up in separate campaigns, with different staff, at what point do the principals say, "Hey, maybe it's US?"

zing

Moreover, several staffers told POLITICO Mook’s data and analytics operation was so well run, he was able to tell Clinton herself that she had won — even as the networks were declaring the race too close to call. “Get over to the hotel now!” he told the former secretary of state, according one aide who was at campaign headquarters on caucus night. “We need to beat Bernie!” — a mad rush to declare victory before Sanders took the stage to declare the contest a draw. Eight years ago, Mook played the same role when he ordered then Sen. Clinton to declare victory in the Indiana primary over Barack Obama — despite network projections that she might lose the state.

ah, maybe this was old news already, but that's the first thing i've seen that tries to explain why the clinton campaign declared victory so early

"Look, she going to be the nominee, but she’s not going to get any style points and if she isn’t careful she is going to be a wounded nominee. And they better worked this shit out fast because who ever the Republicans pick is going to be 29 times tougher than Bernie.”

Apparently the pros think more of the clowncar than you guys do.

At the heart of problem this time, staffers, donors and Clinton-allied operatives say, was the Clinton’s decision not to appoint a single empowered chief strategist – a role the forceful but controversial Mark Penn played in 2008 – and disperse decision-making responsibility to a sprawling team with fuzzy lines of authority.

This kind of jibes with my impression of her campaign strategy and messaging as kind of scattershot.

yeah, but Mark Penn was more than just the "Chief Strategist" - he had soft shoulders to lean on, an easy laugh that could disperse tension in no time at all, trustworthy eyes, rock solid abs.

he was only "controversial" in the sense that no one could seem to agree on whether he was the best person they had ever worked with, or the best person that had ever existed

The Sady Doyle piece supports my theory about Hillary Clinton representing a kind of personal narrative feminism rather than a collective feminism for her biggest supporters. I'm not saying there's no value in that, but I prefer the take of Liza Featherstone who said (paraphrasing) "Hillary says that when she is president, fathers will be able to tell their daughters they can be anything they want to be. I think fathers will be able to tell their daughters that when their daughters have healthcare, income supports, access to affordable education..." And I have daughters, and I genuinely think those things are bigger potential problems for them than whether they "believe" they can be anything.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, February 8, 2016 2:13 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i find it hard to believe that /anyone/ is invested in the kind of "personal narrative feminism" you invoke. i mean, i know they are, but in hillary's case it's so patently obvious that any invocations of this sort of thing are entirely cynical and opportunistic.

you can tell your daughter she can be anything she wants even if hillary isn't elected president! i'm inclined to say that a clinton victory will be virtually meaningless in terms of achieving any traditional feminist goals.

almost typed "feminine"

"Apparently the pros think more of the clowncar than you guys do."

I don't think that it's a matter of the candidates being stronger as it is of the supporting players being nastier and more polished at this.

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/02/ted-cruz-unable-to-answer-question-about-his-favorite-band-because-hes-a-human-robot/

how the fuck is it not a vote for hil piece?

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, 8 February 2016 20:33 (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, she doesn't tell us to vote for Hil is a good start, only mentions Bernie a half-dozen times, including pointing out that this isn't about his views or his candidacy as much as it's about the state and history of progressivism v women.

Have to ask, Amateurist - have you read the piece in question here, or are you surfing on vibes?

presumably some parents are encouraging their daughters to be something better than Imperial Manager of the Corporate State and Drone Missions.

Apparently the pros think more of the clowncar than you guys do.

When it gets down to just two major party nominees, all the money and all the surrogates are focused on the single point of opposition. It gets tougher. Even a candidate as weak as Rubio would have a ton of throw weight behind him pushing.

xpost the Empire phased that role out years before the destruction of the 2nd Death Star

as Nate Silver has pointed out, don't be so quick to assume Rubio just shat the bathtub. while he was the loser of the debate, these things are often hard to translate into actual results.

that being said, he wasn't in the driver's seat to begin with so while it might not *hurt* him as much as feared, it definitely won't help.

still feel like Trump isn't getting the nom, even if it will require some backdoor convincing of a candidate to withdraw sooner than they want to. but then again, the Repub party just whiffed trying to take out Cruz's kneecaps, so maybe they're just giving up and hoping they can reshape him.

how the fuck is it not a vote for hil piece?

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, 8 February 2016 20:33 (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, she doesn't tell us to vote for Hil is a good start, only mentions Bernie a half-dozen times, including pointing out that this isn't about his views or his candidacy as much as it's about the state and history of progressivism v women.

Have to ask, Amateurist - have you read the piece in question here, or are you surfing on vibes?

― Andrew Farrell, Monday, 8 February 2016 21:07 (7 minutes ago) Permalink

It ends with "this is why I'm voting for Hillary," and describes Bernie Sanders as someone who "ran to keep feminists out of office." And she regularly writes pro-Hillary and anti-Bernie pieces.

DJP the continuing power of the Tea Party to affect local elections and cumulatively to affect national politics is proof that Americans can and do get engaged in a sustained way on specific legislative issues if they feel a strong connection to them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_the_Tea_Party_movement

as Nate Silver has pointed out, don't be so quick to assume Rubio just shat the bathtub. while he was the loser of the debate, these things are often hard to translate into actual results.

It's not that he "lost the debate," it's that his extreme vulnerabilities as a candidate became obvious, much like when Rick Perry gave those garbled speeches that helped tank his campaign. Silver is great at certain kinds of analysis but I'd bet he's wrong on this point.

So according to that Politico article, HRC should have hired someone like the guy who helped her lose in 2008.

xpost I get that, but this has also been a campaign where the (perceived) frontrunner has publicly face-planted multiple times without the expected blowback.

this what was a Google Analytics poll had to say halfway through the debate:

https://twitter.com/hunterschwarz/status/696167531711750144

and here's Time magazine's results after it concluded, which actually had Rubio tied with Christie.

(Slate had results more fitting in with the narrative, with Rubio nowhere to be found).

so it's hard to say. remember, this is a party that viewed Biden's dismantling of Ryan to be "bullying behavior".

meanwhile, Trump is the frontrunner in all those polls (admittedly not the most scientific ones), despite having been deemed a 2nd/3rd place finisher by the majority of experts who graded the debates.

who knows. I hope they all die in a tractor pull accident.

oops forgot link:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268556-online-poll-trump-triumphant-in-latest-gop-debate

Have to ask, Amateurist - have you read the piece in question here, or are you surfing on vibes?

i was responding to your comment which referenced the piece but wasn't /about/ it. no, i didn’t read the piece. not sure what "surfing on vibes" means but it sounds dangerous.

Tough But Wrong is my new favorite slogan, thanks Alfred

not sure what "surfing on vibes" means but it sounds dangerous.

Brian Wilson solo album iirc

xpost I get that, but this has also been a campaign where the (perceived) frontrunner has publicly face-planted multiple times without the expected blowback.

True, except what happened with Rubio in his exchange with Christie wasn't a face-plant or gaffe in the conventional sense.

gaffes are "human all too human" moments

The Christie/Rubio exchange was a straight-up Mortal Kombat fatality situation

And then k3vin writes to Οὖτις: "your cali vote didn't matter tho lol, so don't sweat it."

Well so IF the value of Berniemania is that it shows there is non-ignorable voter engagement behind a position (even if it is not a winning position), then All Votes Matter, surely?

just to be clear (because I *hate* how these distinctions are elided) - Nader did not run in a party primary, he ran in the general election. Primary votes matter *to the party*. My general election vote for Nader didn't matter to anyone, because he ran *as a Green*, and he had no hope of winning California's electoral votes.

many many xposts