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

youtube comments are generally the worst comments out there

Don't see this linked here already, and it's Fox, but it doesn't seem like we can treat this campaign as pie in the sky at this point: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/269944-sanders-ahead-of-clinton-in-national-poll

angry assholish men on the internet seems to be fairly universal. I admit you see it more than you should among ostensible Bernie supporters, but you never really know who those people are (18-year-olds? Ex-paultards?). If the patriarchy is everywhere, it's in Bernie Sanders' camp to an extent too, I just never thought it was fair to make it seem as though Sanders' male supporters were especially guilty of this. I'd imagine less so on average, although I have certainly seen it. If the claim is that Clinton is losing votes from people who would support a male equivalent, you'd kind of need a male equivalent for comparison. IDK who that would be, Chuck Schumer? Sanders isn't a particularly good comparison point because he's so far to the left of her.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:23 PM (35 minutes ago)

here's a comparison that lesser-evil proponents should be able to appreciate: sure bernie's supporters can be assholes, but they're probably nowhere near as trump's!

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/March2016PrimariesPollingProject.pdf

super tuesday is gonna be pretty brutal for the bernmeister

If the claim is that Clinton is losing votes from people who would support a male equivalent, you'd kind of need a male equivalent for comparison.

I don't think this is really the claim though? Like... "sexist ranting on the internet is bad" doesn't imply "because the sexists would be voting for my candidate if they were not sexist."

Angry assholish men on the internet are everywhere, but it's not really surprising that the first female president is having an effect like a magnet on iron filings. Which is not to say that Sanders' campaign should just shrug about it, but the idea that they're good people and so the level among the fans should be lower there seems odd at best.

here's a comparison that lesser-evil proponents should be able to appreciate: sure bernie's supporters can be assholes, but they're probably nowhere near as trump's!

― k3vin k., 19. februar 2016 06:01 (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, one of the gamergate targets, for example wrote on twitter complain that she got way more abuse when writing negative stuff about Sanders than about Trump. Prob BerneBro's - which is a very real phenomenon, and people were complaining about it for a long time before the phrase was coined - are more technically attuned than Trump ditto's, so to speak?

Here's an example that might suggest Clinton is losing votes for sexist reasons: When O'Malley didn't manage to get enough support to get beyond the thresholds in the local Iowa caucuses, it was reported that most of the support went to Sanders. Even though politically, you would think they'd be much more aligned with Clinton.

Also, of course HRC is losing votes for sexist reasons, come on! That is inevitable, and hardly Sanders' fault, the only way that wouldn't happen was if no men ran against her.

i mean, i'm sure she is losing some votes for sexist reasons. my point was that people on this thread discussing sexist asshole comments by bernie fans weren't really getting concerned about the lost votes but rather the sexist asshole behavior. but i feel like every other post i've made in the last 24 hours i have to go "no, no, my point was..." which makes me think either i am typing in esperanto or i have left the planet earth.

up for 23.5 hours! and about to send in these papers and go to bed. but clearly i urgently needed to respond to frederik b first.

P sexist of Bernie to run when you think about it

DC: Um, I was responding to man alive and kevin k...

I've quite enjoyed your rantings over the last 23,5 hours, btw :)

Five Thirty Eight article doing good wonkish work on why Cruz has an uphill battle - the evangelical states that he'll do best in are more likely to assign delegates proportionally rather than winner-takes-all.

This Politico piece about the slow death of the Bush campaign is worth reading.

man, the fact that trump's numbers haven't been hit at all after a debate where he blamed george bush for 9/11 seems like evidence that his 'I could shoot somebody on 5th avenue' brag wasn't an exaggeration.

Again, nothing he says will reduce his numbers, but it can sure as shit keep them him from adding enough to make up a majority.

Watched a bit of the CNN town hall last night, and at one point Trump more or less said to a voter "So you're not voting for me--whatever." Different.

That's actually good business practice - or rather, a good tactic in sales. If someone cannot be won over, you don't waste time or resources on that person, you move on to a gettable customer. You secure low-hanging fruit with the minimum effort. Then you prioritize among other target customers according to the probability of win (Pwin). You adjust your level of effort strategically.

But sales is different from trying to win an election, because in November, you may want to reapproach the people you write off in February.

wrote off

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-lead-slashed-south-carolina-poll-n521101

Divine intervention, perhaps. (Except if, like me, you want him to win.)

Trump thinking he can go head-to-head with the Holy Father is the most insane political calculation I expect to see in my lifetime. The Catholic vote isn't what it used to be, but burning that bridge is madness

― tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:09 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

amazing to see a whole bunch of anti-catholic bigotry shoot right to the surface in result (nb ann coulter); i'm half expecting a wave of anti-masonic memes from trump twitter next

from The Tampa Bay Times:

A new, sweeping review of all committees Rubio has sat on since taking office in 2011 paints a bleak picture of participation in the day-to-day responsibilities of the job.

Rubio is on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Commerce and Small Business and Entrepreneurship committees. The Florida Republican has missed 68 percent of hearings, or 407 of 598 for which records were available.

His skipped 80 percent of Commerce hearings and 85 percent of those held by Small Business, records show.

He has missed 60 percent of Foreign Relations hearings since joining the Senate despite making his committee experience a centerpiece of his qualifications for president

what does he do all day, practice his dance moves?

it's odd that someone who doesn't want to work would think "huh, y'know what would be really cool would be having the hardest, most demanding job in the world! Yup that's for me"

No doubt Rubio has heard that Reagan took a nap each day when he was President.

Rubio no-shows at a bunch of events in SC just now. Not a good luck esp w/the attendance record above!

i think he might be an actual moron

one last night and another this morning

being president pretty much guarantees you as much bottled water as you can drink

i keep saying this and saying this but rubio seems like a true dolt, just a lazy immature terrified kid. idk how this affect isn't reading the same way to the whole universe, am i taking crazy pills

he's taking moron pills

he both tries too hard and doesn't try hard enough, at the same time.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/19/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-transcripts/

So why is this a red herring?

Records show Bill and Hillary Clinton made over $125 million from giving paid speeches since 2001. In particular, critics question why Hillary Clinton received over $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, an investment bank notorious for using its ties to public officials to influence policy, over the course of three speeches in 2013.

And while Clinton likened her paid speeches to similar speeches given by Bernie Sanders, financial records show Sanders made $1,876 for two paid speeches and a television appearance last year. Sanders donated the speech fees to a local charity in Vermont that serves low-income families.

i promise you she did not lecture goldman sachs and condemn them in the speeches they paid her to give. in this primary environment anything she said to them that was in anyway positive would be damaging. i think it's a red herring bc we know what she said - there's no secret conspiracy going on. she said nice things to them, like maybe "what you do is important for generating wealth in america," which on its own would be damaging to her campaign. but the insinuation is that she said something beyond that, like something like "if i am elected there will be no new finance regulations."

No doubt Rubio has heard that Reagan took a nap each day when he was President.

And didn't GWB do everything he could to turn the Presidency into a 9-5 job? That's the thing with these guys - they really don't see it as "the hardest, most demanding job in the world"; they think they can just get into office, issue sweeping fiats, and head to the golf course.

how do you make 125 million dollars giving speeches wow

First there should be two of you, so as to maximize your speech earnings.

Bill made the big money, and Hillary did ok too

According to public disclosures, by giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015:

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/

The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms

just a little quid pro quo, let's be cool

issue sweeping fiats

I read this as issue sweeping farts.

man, the fact that trump's numbers haven't been hit at all after a debate where he blamed george bush for 9/11 seems like evidence that his 'I could shoot somebody on 5th avenue' brag wasn't an exaggeration.

― iatee, Friday, February 19, 2016 9:57 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This very fact was what caused me to dub him "the Springtime for Hitler of candidates"

paints a bleak picture of participation

curious what this painting looks like

re the speeches, the thing is we already know she gave the speeches and got paid for them. It's the transcripts that are a red herring. She's not getting paid to disclose state secrets, and she's not making secret promises to large private audiences. She's probably just saying vaguely coded stuff about "balanced approaches to regulation" and that sort of shit. Probably not much worse than what she says publicly. The point of the speeches as an issue is that the fees buy influence, not what she's telling them.

I read this as issue sweeping farts.

― Retro novelty punk (Dan Peterson), Friday, February 19, 2016 6:04 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ditto.

i keep saying this and saying this but rubio seems like a true dolt, just a lazy immature terrified kid. idk how this affect isn't reading the same way to the whole universe, am i taking crazy pills

he floated to where he is now entirely based on nobody actually hating him. but yeah, he is really not-so-sharp, and he's not some dubya/reagan anti-intellectual common man either - they could talk their way out of situations that he can't.

he always either looks like the boy who forgot to study for the test or the boy who remembered to study for the test, but even #2 isn't a good look

Rubio is every useless dipshit of a manager I've ever had who managed to bumblefuck their way to the middle without having a single worthwhile thing to contribute. It's a baffling phenomenon but I think it mostly boils down to the fact that people who don't have the time/energy to really scrutinize give the guy a once-over and say, 'yeah, he looks responsible enough'.

yeah the long-standing belief that he was somehow the GOP's obama has, i think, been pretty clearly torn to shreds. setting aside his just total lack of presence, he very obviously doesn't get people excited about him, or he wouldn't be mired where he is in this race.

peter principle to presidency

Rubio's affect does read like a lazy, immature, terrified kid who is carried everywhere on the shoulders of his handlers. But his handlers are fairly sharp and professional, so they've thrown a thin haze of competence around him.

i think he might be an actual moron

Don't say this, it might mean he's got a shot! And for sure fellow moron GWB took his share of vacations, too.