US Elections: Children of the Revolution

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Kalbear said:

And again, why?

He's a democrat. He's been a democrat for at least  16 years. He holds several positions in the senate as one of the long-tenured Democratic senators. He votes with other democratic senators. He was esteemed by the DNC as a potential presidential candidate because of his alignment with democratic principles. He supports other Democratic party members. 

The only thing he hasn't done is been minority leader. Which honestly, he'd probably be in line for. 

I thought he was independent until late 2015, when he registered as Democrat. All his political positions are good notch further to the left than the Democrats'. So there's some good argument to be made, that he is not part of the Democratic Parties establishment. Of course his positions are much closer to the Democratic Party than to the GOP, so of course he picked the Democrats as base for Presidential Campaign. Though my guess is, that he knew beforehand that he would not win the ticket. He wanted to seize the opportunity to put his his political positions out for a broader debate. And a Democratic Primary offers in the US a far better medium, than a third party general election run. 

If you accept those premises it makes sense for Sanders to run to the bitter end, and to ask a high price for his endorsement. If he drops out and sells out his principles to blindly endorse Clinton no matter what, then the whole point of putting his message out would have been an excercise in futility, and he would have lost one of his big political selling points, his integrity.

[Rubious]

54 minutes ago, Notone said:

I don't really get the outrage over this. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Sanders is explicitly running a campaign based on a program/on issues/principles he considers important. That he does not give away his endorsement for free just seems consistent to me. 

Hillary and Bernie are already so close on policy. I find it gross that he would publicly threaten to the media that he would withhold his endorsement over the 5-10% where they differ. Except for possibly Warren's, I can't think of a more important endorsement than Bernie's this cycle. Did Clinton (privately) send Obama a list of demands before endorsing him in '08? Probably! The point is, for the sake of party unity, she did it. And that shit was far more acrimonious than what we're dealing with today.

You don't get the outrage. I don't get why the dude who's losing gets to dictate the terms of his surrender, when he's still insulting our intelligence by saying California is where he's going to finally clinch it. If he's really not gonna endorse her, fine. But just say it.

ETA - I'm not outraged. If I were, there would be A LOT more swearing.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Notone said:

I thought he was independent until late 2015, when he registered as Democrat. 

The short answer is 'kind of'. 

He registered as a democrat for the purposes of the presidential nomination last year. Prior to that he had run as a sort of independent that primaried with the Democratic party, was endorsed by the Democratic party, used Democratic party funding and caucused with the democratic party. He was campaigned for by Obama, Dean, and Harry Reid. 

From his wiki article:

Quote

As an independent, Sanders worked out a deal with the Senate Democratic leadership in which he agrees to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters except with permission from Democratic whip Dick Durbin (a request that is almost never made or granted). In return, he is allowed to keep his seniority and received the committee seats that would have been available to him as a Democrat; in 2013–14 he was Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs (during the Veterans Health Administration scandal).

So he is an independent but...not really. 

And this was a change from 1996 or 1998 (I forget which). 

The idea that he isn't a Democrat despite taking funding from the Democrats, primarying with the Democrats, caucusing with the Democrats, taking senate seats with the Democrats, answering to the Democratic leadership and being endorsed by the Democrats is...well, it's a little bit doth protest too much.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Kal,

Every Independent caucuses with a party, otherwise they'd never get committee appointments. Look, going forward you may have an argument that he's becoming part of leadership because he will get some concessions to get out of the race that could lead to being the chair of a committee or a cabinet position. But to argue that he's been a part of the establishment for a while is just not accurate.

Here's a perfect example as to why your previous arguments fall flat: Ron Paul. He held office for a long time. He relied on party endorsements and fund raising. He had a overlapping voting record. He, unlike Sanders, was always a party member. He was very popular with a portion of the base. And no one on Earth would ever call him a part of the Establishment or a part of leadership. Hell, the RNC changed the rules of the nominating process to make it harder on him.

[BloodRider]

On 3/21/2016 at 11:02 AM, Fez said:

Shock poll out of Utah up on RCP showing Clinton (and Sanders) beating Drumpf in the general election. Same poll shows Cruz and Kasich crushing Clinton (and Sanders) by the margins you'd expect in Utah. And for the primary shows Cruz at over 50% (meaning he'd get all the delegates), Kasich in second, and Drumpf in a distant third.

I'm confident in saying that enough Utah Republicans will rally around Drumpf that'll he win the state in the general election, but its a good reminder of how incredibly unpopular Drumpf is outside of his core base (which Mormons are not part of). And any money he'd have to spend in the general election to shore up freaking Utah is money he can't spend elsewhere.

This is a shame.  Before I had thought that we could separate the BernieBots every privilege beans from Bernie himself.  Looks like I was wrong, and he is starting to think his shit don't stink.  Shades of Mittens as his ship sank.

[Kalbear]

Every independent might caucus with a party - but not every one strikes a deal with the Democratic whip to vote precisely with them on every procedural vote. Not all of them campaign with the Democratic presidential nominee, the senate majority leader and the chair of the DNC. 

And honestly, the idea that he caucuses with the  democrats so he can get on committees is kind of precisely what I mean by 'establishment'. He isn't doing things his own way. He's following precisely the rules and systems that the Senate has. He's not breaking with his own party (unlike Paul, who often did). He's not campaigning against his own party (again, unlike Paul did in the RNC). It really comes down to what you think 'establishment' means. To you it's very clear that he's not establishment, though you've given very little example of why this is the case other than authority appeals and ad hominem attacks. To me this just rings to the idea that no one knows what establishment is, other than 'not Clinton'. Paul attempted to hijack the RNC convention; I don't think Sanders would ever even consider that. 

I dunno, Tywin. I get what you're saying, I do. But Sanders being this rogue outsider feels like a lot more spin than substance, especially the more I look into Sanders record.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

This is a shame.  Before I had thought that we could separate the BernieBots every privilege beans from Bernie himself.  Looks like I was wrong, and he is starting to think his shit don't stink.  Shades of Mittens as his ship sank.

Is that the post you meant to quote?  Because your comments don't pertain to it at all.  Did you mean to quote the article about Bernie's policy demands to endorse Clinton?

[BloodRider]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Is that the post you meant to quote?  Because your comments don't pertain to it at all.  Did you mean to quote the article about Bernie's policy demands to endorse Clinton?

God - yes.  That quote randomly appears in my replies, with wanton abandon as to what I actually clicked quote on.  Stupid fucking quote system.

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

God - yes.  That quote randomly appears in my replies, with wanton abandon as to what I actually clicked quote on.  Stupid fucking quote system.

I've found that if you refresh the page and then click the space to add a post, before you start typing or even click on the text field, hover your mouse over the quote that's stuck in your replies. There should be a + symbol to the top left of quote. Click that and then press the 'Delete' key on your keyboard. It should go away.

That works for me. But once I actually start typing anything it doesn't anymore. Really fickle system.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

No only that, but "I'm not a leader of Democrats" seems like a really weird rallying cry for someone running to be the leader of the Democrats.

You win the board today!

[A Horse Named Stranger]

18 minutes ago, Rubious said:

Hillary and Bernie are already so close on policy. I find it gross that he would publicly threaten to the media that he would withhold his endorsement over the 5-10% where they differ. Except for possibly Warren's, I can't think of a more important endorsement than Bernie's this cycle. Did Clinton (privately) send Obama a list of demands before endorsing him in '08? Probably! The point is, for the sake of party unity, she did it. And that shit was far more acrimonious than what we're dealing with today.

You don't get the outrage. I don't get why the dude who's losing gets to dictate the terms of his surrender, when he's still insulting our intelligence by saying California is where he's going to finally clinch it. If he's really not gonna endorse her, fine. But just say it.

ETA - I'm not outraged. If I were, there would be A LOT more swearing.

Check my other post. I touched that issue there.

Sanders is running on his program and his political integrity. If he just endorses Clinton without her making a big move towards him politicaly, he would sell out his platform and his integrity. If Clinton wants his endorsement she needs to meet his price. Sanders program is an economic one. So it's a bit abstract. Social issues a bit more tangible in my opinion.

Imagine it was Warren or Pelosi running on a very feminist program. One of her main points being: to pass legislation, that every company should aim for women quota of 50% quota on their board (which is very Scandinavian so in a bit Bernieish). If she just surrenders and does not try to force Clinton to at least include a fixed quota of likesay 30% in leading positions she would look like a total sell out. Which would also devalue her endorsement in my opinion.

The comparission is a bit of a stretch I know. But that's basically the position Sanders is in. If Sanders manages to push Clinton the left for the general election he can endorse her without losing face (and his integrity). Then he can always say, look it's not perfect, and I wanted a lot more, but it's a step in the right direction. 

So I can see, why Sanders is submitting terms. 

[Fez]

This is what Trump put up on Facebook a few minutes ago (bolding is mine)

Quote

I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it. Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence. Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz. I look forward to spending the week in Wisconsin, winning the Republican nomination and ultimately the Presidency in order to Make America Great Again.
- Donald J. Trump

As always, Trump shows a dangerously impressive level of trolling. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

This is what Trump put up on Facebook a few minutes ago (bolding is mine)

As always, Trump shows a dangerously impressive level of trolling. 

It's starting to smell like his spokesperson Katrina Pierson may have provided much of this "story" to The Enquirer. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Whether he wins the Presidency or not, I think it's probably safe to say that he has forever changed the process of running for President. His campaign will be studied and emulated going forward.

Maybe in 2020 we can have Simon, Paula and Randy as the judges evaluating the contestants for American President!!!!

Ryan Seacrest will be moderating all debates from now on. 

No. Trump is too unique to emulate his way of campaigning. Though some of his approach (like skipping a debate to be talked about) is basically one to one copy and paste from Reagen, even his campaign slogan is a rip off. Which makes sense, since he pretty much embodies the 1980s (one of the worst decades) it seems like a natural fit that he copies the 1980s Republican Saviour. 

I just wish there would be Pat Bateman lurking around the GOP debates.

 

On a more serious note, maybe that Trump shock will shake the media and political spin doctors up a bit, so that the political discourse can be more about substance again and not media stunts. But looking at the Supreme Court vacancy that seems a unlikely. So better get used to candidates like Cruz.

[Guest]

I am just surprised Ted Cruz has attractive women that will sleep with him, good for him.

Other than the hookers (if true) this should be a non-story.

[jarl the climber]

17 minutes ago, Notone said:

No. Trump is too unique to emulate his way of campaigning. Though some of his approach (like skipping a debate to be talked about) is basically one to one copy and paste from Reagen, even his campaign slogan is a rip off. Which makes sense, since he pretty much embodies the 1980s (one of the worst decades) it seems like a natural fit that he copies the 1980s Republican Saviour. 

I just wish there would be Pat Bateman lurking around the GOP debates.

 

On a more serious note, maybe that Trump shock will shake the media and political spin doctors up a bit, so that the political discourse can be more about substance again and not media stunts. But looking at the Supreme Court vacancy that seems a unlikely. So better get used to candidates like Cruz.

IDK on a tactical level I think Trump has done some things that political strategists will take a hard look at. Contrary to popular opinion Trump does have some sort of ground game, he has friends in the hospitality industry, the trade industries and stuff like that and he seems to have managed this much more efficiently and quietly then his opponents. I also think that centralizing his operation and running it out of his flying HQ has worked very well, its a shame that his shortcomings as a candidate have taken away from the excellent job his outfit is doing on an administrative level. People have complained about the free press coverage he has gotten but so much of its bad that its likely the main thing that has kept him from pulling away and running the table on his opponents. Also all this nasty stuff is turning off a lot of voters, I know its turning me off.

13 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

I am just surprised Ted Cruz has attractive women that will sleep with him, good for him.

Other than the hookers (if true) this should be a non-story.

 The president is the commander in chief, believe me military people get court martialed all the time for adultery, this will be an issue for him if its true, hookers or no hookers, ecspecially with the sort of voters he is trying to attract.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

15 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

I am just surprised Ted Cruz has attractive women that will sleep with him, good for him.

Other than the hookers (if true) this should be a non-story.

I think what makes it a story, is not the infidelity itself, but that Cruz portrays himself as being ultra conservative Christian. It's more about hypocrisy and lying.

And I honestly don't think it is worse to sleep with a hooker than with a co-worker/employee. It is the same act.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, Lany Freelove Strangeways said:

I think what makes it a story, is not the infidelity itself, but that Cruz portrays himself as being ultra conservative Christian. It's more about hypocrisy and lying.

And I honestly don't think it is worse to sleep with a hooker than with a co-worker/employee. It is the same act.

I actually think it is worse than that.  Heidi Cruz is the most human thing about Ted Cruz.  She's incredibly accomplished (more so than he is IMO), and you walk away after reading about her that there must be something you are overlooking about him if she has stuck with him all of these years.  She has also been pretty open about her struggles with depression.  You then turn him into someone who would betray this amazing person like that and you realize that, if true, that she is probably the one with a blind spot about him. . . .

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lany Freelove Strangeways said:

I think what makes it a story, is not the infidelity itself, but that Cruz portrays himself as being ultra conservative Christian. It's more about hypocrisy and lying.

 As to Trump has managed the press better than anyone, he has managed stories behind the scenes, threatened and cajoled news management into reporting, and not reporting, certain things.  He also has a tiny campaign staff, no pollsters, few spokespeople - and tons of free press.  His traditional ads, at least here in Iowa, were awful so he is clearly not the norm.  I do not think this can be replicated.

As for Cruz, he has no path to the nomination anyway. He won't have enough delegates and there is no way the DC insiders vote for him on the second ballot.  This entire thing is going to come down to the rules used at the convention - and we won't see them until right before the convention.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Kal,

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your definition is far too broad and I doubt you'd find many people in the political or punditry class that would agree with you, but you have every right to believe your view is correct. And for what it's worth, being a part of the establishment is neither a good or bad thing. It's just a title that identifies where you stand in the party IMO.