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

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.

yet another Rubio obit, this one well-sourced.

Rubio's handling of the Gang of Eight negotiations might offer a window into his executive style. "He was the guy who would show up late, leave early and leave the dirty work to his staff," recalls one aide who worked behind the scenes on the bill. "You'd have a situation where all the members would be in the room and a couple of senators would be arguing, and then Rubio's staffer would be arguing, while Rubio would be sitting back with a Cheshire-cat grin on his face, watching."

To the shock of many people who were involved with the bill, Rubio outsourced the bulk of the negotiations to a close friend and hired gun, Miami attorney Enrique Gonzalez. While hiring experts is far from unusual, Gonzalez is an attorney at one of the most prominent corporate immigration law firms in the country, and Rubio made him the head of his team. "Enrique's role was to make sure the business community loved this bill and knew who it was who took care of them," says the aide. "From a political standpoint, that was a smart play. But it was also incredibly irresponsible, a case study in the donor class controlling our politics. And what it says about what kind of president Rubio would be is quite frightening." This is why Trump's attacks on Rubio have resonated – "He's right," the staffer continues. "The establishment looks at him and says, 'He'll play ball.' And the immigration bill is evidence of that."

guy has graft all over him, good riddence. however I still liked him more than cruz or trump

how do you feel about bucket of vomit vs. pile of shit

at least with bucket of vomit, you get a bucket

ok lol

“I would very much have enjoyed speaking at the AIPAC conference,” Sanders said in a letter Friday to Robert Cohen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee president.

“Obviously, issues impacting Israel and the Middle East are of the utmost importance to me, to our country and to the world,” he said. “Unfortunately, I am going to be traveling throughout the West and the campaign schedule that we have prevents me from attending. Since AIPAC has chosen not to permit candidates to address the conference remotely, the best that I can do is to send you a copy of the remarks that I would have given if I was able to attend.”

however i would not be surprised if his remarks were pointed + critical

You can grow stuff with a pile of shit.

xp

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 5:30 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there are good criticisms of TARP but brink of financial apocalypse is not exactly when you want to initiate a considered debate on financial reform. people barely understood what was going on at the time. if anything dodd-frank is a better target as a missed opportunity. Bernanke & Geithner knew they had to do some fast and dirty shit to keep it from turning into the Great Depression #2 and they succeeded. blame lies more on them for what they wrote than the politicians who voted for it.

JCLC going all Good Democrat on us has definitely been one of the more personally disappointing election season trends

brink of financial apocalypse is not exactly when you want to initiate a considered debate on financial reform

right, and after a mass shooting is not when you want to initiate a considered debate on gun law reform

i guess we can all have this discussion during the next collapse in, oh, 4 years or so