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

there's a narrative about incarceration that it's a conscious attempt to decimate the black community, or keep it under control, or some other nefarious subversive purpose and not that it's the result of bad policies.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/759/both.png

idk i'm sure there's some way you can square the circle of "we passed this bill because we wanted to help the black community" and "we passed this bill because we wanted to hurt the black community" but to me the 2 are pretty exclusive.

they didn't give a fuck about the black community beyond winning elections

their calculus was simple as that

I'm not a Hillary fan, but tarring her with Bill's record is silly imo.

they didn't give a fuck about the black community beyond winning elections

who cares what their motivation was (or is). shouldn't politicians be judged on their results not their motivations?

the ole rockism debate

tarring her with Bill's record is silly imo.

see "super-predators" comment etc. These are things Hillary said in public about this bill, in support.

shouldn't politicians be judged on their results not their motivations?

the results were terrible.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but tarring her with Bill's record is silly imo.

― never have i been a blue calm sea (collardio gelatinous), Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:06 PM (16 minutes ago)

it's very clearly not, particularly on the issues she publicly supported at the time

apparently bernie also voted for the crime bill?

he did

yup. it was a bipartisan success!

I suspect if Bernie hadn't voted for it he would've been making hay out of it by now

part of the hillary sales package is that her first lady experience counts as experience. which it does!

xps yeah, whoops, had forgotten the salient fact that bernie's in the same boat wrt 1994, tho not, tbf, at its helm.

http://rs270.pbsrc.com/albums/jj107/ChoklitReign/Siren.gif~c200 BREAKING: "Knuck If You Buck" played at Bernie Sanders rally http://rs270.pbsrc.com/albums/jj107/ChoklitReign/Siren.gif~c200

there's a narrative about incarceration that it's a conscious attempt to decimate the black community, or keep it under control, or some other nefarious subversive purpose and not that it's the result of bad policies.

i am on unexpert ground too, but in the clintons' case the alternative explanation to "they had no idea any of this would happen" is not "they were once ideologically committed to the destruction of black people but have now repented" but simply "they needed votes from people to whom the destruction of black people seemed just, and now they need votes from people to whom it seems unjust". this is a question about authenticity and rockism only up until the moment you wonder whose votes an incumbent hillary clinton will be more concerned about in 2020.

well put.

I think I'm recoiling at what feels like a Hillary pile-on here sometimes, and so tried to provide the other side of the argument, but I'm doing a half-assed job of it (partly because I'm not convinced myself of the merits of my argument).

i can only imagine that obama singling out trump for ridiculousness will help him in the polls

http://i.imgur.com/ptZApR2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/gqdQeiZ.gif

here's a dumb thing bill clinton said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-mixed-race_us_56c1cf6ce4b0c3c55051de41

"None of our genetics are racially pure, and Bernie Sanders lives in a hermetically sealed box. Good night, Memphis!"

The whispers that HRC's "firewall" consists of the lower class whites who haven't become Republican and I suppose are "Reagan Democrats coming home" vs "HRC has the black vote in the South" strike me as contradictions if not rifts that may rip open soon.

It doesn't really matter whether the crime bill and the rhetoric around it was some intentionally nefarious plot to "destroy" the black community. There's little doubt that it was a politically expedient means of pandering to and even stoking white racist fear of black people for fun, profit and votes. The fact that black voters may also have bought into "tough on crime" rhetoric and that they understandably wanted to live in safe neighborhoods doesn't really change this. I hadn't made the direct connection before now, but piling welfare reform on top of that two years later was really a double whammy when it comes to mass incarceration -- make it easier for poor people to wind up in prison, and then remove more of the supports that might help keep a person out.

add the signing of the Telecommunications Acct and Defense of Marriage Act signage and

in those documents

http://static.rogerebert.com/redactor_assets/pictures/far-flung-correspondents/should-jfk-have-even-been-made/JFK_sutherland.jpg

PPPPEOOOWWWW

lay neoliberalism

Something to keep in mind is that most sentencing happens at the state level. Something like only 1 out of 10 US prisoners is in a federal prison. The crime bill that Bill Clinton signed only directly affected federal sentencing. States were already increasing sentencing on their own, and its hard to argue Clinton had anything to do with that.

That's true. It was part of a political zeitgeist that probably had more to do with the dominant thinking at policy think tanks and among major donors than any one politician.

I can't come up with any sources off the top of my head but I have definitely read some good work about tough on crime, broken windows policing, and the sort of whispered idea among elites that there were just these irreformable, inherently violent people (you know "superpreadtors") and we should find creative ways of keeping them incapacitated, even if it meant getting them *before* they committed violent crimes.

I tend to think "tough on crime" laws were more of a populist movement than some elite movement. There was an alarming surge in violent crime from the '80s into the early '90s, with all the media sensationalism that went with it. Somewhat inconveniently for opponents of tough sentencing, violent crime fell off a cliff shortly after these mid-90s laws were enacted. No doubt there were other factors involved, but that's partly why pushing back on tough sentencing is a bit of an uphill climb in terms of the politics.

Populist movements are indivisible from elite ones. Elite moments claim moments of prophecy from populist rumblings.

According to Wikipedia, the first Three Strikes Laws were passed by voter initiatives in Washington State and California. Then similar laws were quickly adopted by legislatures in other states. But voter initiatives tend to be the province more of populist movements. This wasn't some policy cooked by up a think-tank and adopted by backroom legislative maneuvering.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/181297.pdf

"Incapacitation effects may be realized by accurately targeting habitual or career offenders
who are unamenable to deterrence and rehabilitation, and must be permanently separated from
society. This perspective was popularized by RAND’S research in the 1970’s and 1980’s on
habitual offenders. Peter Greenwood and Joan Petersilia were early advocates of sentencing
reforms that would isolate and incapacitate habitual offenders: This perspective assumed that
(1) the courts could readily identify the so called “career offender” and (2) the offender’s career
will continue unabated over time. "

hmm actually though more googling around suggests that RAND wasn't that supportive of the actual three strikes laws, so I guess that doesn't explain it.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but tarring her with Bill's record is silly imo.

She was an effective and enthusiastic pimp, maybe even better than Michelle is for O.

That's true. It was part of a political zeitgeist that probably had more to do with the dominant thinking at policy think tanks and among major donors than any one politician.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, February 16, 2016 9:02 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's how politics works in general, and although i wouldn't by any means call the presidential election a distraction, it does soak up a disproportionate amount of attention while politics and policy churns on at all levels.

The crime bill that Bill Clinton signed only directly affected federal sentencing. States were already increasing sentencing on their own, and its hard to argue Clinton had anything to do with that.

ehhhh - - - having a big national to-do about it and making it part of the identity of the presidency, and the party, that they were "tough on crime," not like those old bleeding-heart liberals nobody would be caught dead being now, and saying the phrase "three strikes you're out" and so on.... those aren't going to be neutral in their effects. can easily imagine a state where such a law was being debated, people were like "gee this seems kinda harsh and excessive" but as the national winds coalesce around this three-strikes thing you suddenly look like a softy crime-loving throwback if you're even checking the math to look at how many prisoners this creates.

but even if every state has already adopted it, now it has this additional push. like versus if clinton had challenged the idea, it would have been a different conversation. they're not innocent of participating in the frothing-up of this discourse, which is why hillary clinton's comments on "superpredators" at the time would be important even if the bill somehow hadn't passed. which it did overwhelmingly, with clinton's first congress. obviously all the posturing didn't help much in 1994 meaning that even as a calculated cynical ploy to seize republican ground, it was a failure.

DC didn't her super predator comment happen in 1996, a couple of years after the crime bill had passed? (I still think your broader point, re frothing of the discourse stands )

His comments at the time are worth watching.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LTn3jUoMdVI

…and then he voted with the dems anyway. His ppl say he wanted the vawa & assault rifle restriction provisions.

know him, love him, hadda hear from him

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dick-cheney-calls-trump-liberal-democrat-over-iraq-war-criticism

His comments at the time are worth watching.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LTn3jUoMdVI

…and then he voted with the dems anyway. His ppl say he wanted the vawa & assault rifle restriction provisions.

― zvookster, Tuesday, February 16, 2016 11:13 PM (38 minutes ago)

wow that's crazy

Is that you bomani Jones keeps rting into my timeline every coup,e of months, kev? lol

DC didn't her super predator comment happen in 1996, a couple of years after the crime bill had passed?

ah crap, you're totally right, i'm jumbling together a bunch of things i've only recently even sort of gotten up to speed on. mea culpa.

Hopefully this is already on the thread. Pretty much think of James Adomian's cadences instead of Sanders' own now.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BGRAonpLeQg

kinda feel like Jeb!s "America" tweet is his way of saying he is fully capable of murdering a man, don't think of him as a milquetoast
and truth be told, given the bush family's undeniable illuminati affiliation, i would say the chances he has not danced naked in the moonlight with the heart of a fresh kill grasped in his outstretched hand is likely nil
yet, he's STILL kinda lame and that's the jeb! magic

Even in Nevada:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-nevada-poll/index.html

Nevada doesn't have quite as many delegates as SC (59-43), but it's #1 on Wikipedia's list of bellwether states:

The American bellwether states (with respect to presidential elections) currently are:
Nevada - 1 miss (1976) from 1912 on (96.2%, slightly "too Republican").
Ohio - 2 misses (1944, 1960) from 1896 on (93.3%, slightly "too Republican"). Currently the longest perfect streak.
New Mexico - 2 misses (1976, 2000) from 1912 on (92.3%, "neutral"). The state of New Mexico voted for the winner of the popular vote in 2000.
Florida - 2 misses (1960, 1992) from 1928 on (90.9%, slightly "too Republican").
Delaware - 2 misses (2000, 2004) from 1952 on (87.5%, slightly "too Democratic"). The state of Delaware voted for the winner of the popular vote in 2000.

New CNN poll for Nevada:

Clinton - 48
Sanders - 47

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-nevada-poll/index.html

same poll:

Trump - 45
Rubio - 19
Cruz - 17

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (7%), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (5%) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (1%) lag well behind those three.

ouch. that's below the "other" threshold