U.S. Election: It's Gonna Be a Huge Thread, It's Gonna Be the Best Thread!

[Ormond]

So, even though the Nebraska Democratic party decided to hold caucuses which actually elected their delegates to the national convention, state law required the names of the candidates to be on today's primary ballot. And although Sanders won the caucuses, Clinton won today's "beauty contest" primary. Evidently caucus goers and primary voters really are different.

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-gets-symbolic-primary-victory-in-nebraska-but-bernie/article_68f6e02c-1708-11e6-ac82-637c8f7c3d14.html

 

 

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

So, even though the Nebraska Democratic party decided to hold caucuses which actually elected their delegates to the national convention, state law required the names of the candidates to be on today's primary ballot. And although Sanders won the caucuses, Clinton won today's "beauty contest" primary. Evidently caucus goers and primary voters really are different.

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-gets-symbolic-primary-victory-in-nebraska-but-bernie/article_68f6e02c-1708-11e6-ac82-637c8f7c3d14.html

 

 

Well, mostly there are just MORE primary voters. AFAIK the turnout for the beauty contest vote was much higher then for the caucus.

[Inigima]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think it's important to keep in mind that the time to recruit solid candidates for these races was nearly a year ago, before anyone knew that Trump would eventually burst his bonds and run amok through the GOP laboratory. I imagine a lot of solid Democrats passed on 2016, and are kicking themselves now.

That being said, there are some solid challengers in '16: Maggie Hassan, Russ Feingold, Tammy Duckworth, etc. Also, if Trump does as badly as I suspect he will, the wave that swamps him will lift all Democratic boats, and even marginal candidates will do better than expected.

We should be running decent left wing candidates whether the Donald is a serious contender or not. The Democrats' frequent failure to run someone the left would actually like in office is sad and makes us dislike the party.

Really pulling for Feingold. I like the guy quite a lot and IIRC he was one of the few who understood How To Computer, but I would also love to see Wisconsin throw that know-nothing shitstain Ron Johnson out on the same ear that no accurate information ever penetrates.

[Shryke]

22 minutes ago, Inigima said:

We should be running decent left wing candidates whether the Donald is a serious contender or not. The Democrats' frequent failure to run someone the left would actually like in office is sad and makes us dislike the party.

Really pulling for Feingold. I like the guy quite a lot and IIRC he was one of the few who understood How To Computer, but I would also love to see Wisconsin throw that know-nothing shitstain Ron Johnson out on the same ear that no accurate information ever penetrates.

The problem isn't "running someone the left would actually like in office". The problem is running candidates period. There's just no Democrat in the race in alot of these.

[Lyanna Stark]

5 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

 

 

I must admit, I have been getting my news on current events from the TYT Network and its affiliates. And they make it clear that they are Pro-Bernie.

So I am going to step back from saying Hillary is corrupt or a criminal. And I'll have to examine more closely the things Kyle Kulinski has reported on Hillary.

How about a journalist critical of Clinton who still defends her against these charges? Also, international, so no horse in the race, so to speak.

Personally, my political views align more with Sanders, but I don't think Clinton would be a bad choice. It's also disheartening to see how she is  so easily dismissed as untrustworthy, not qualified enough (!!) and dishonest, which are allegations made to stick so much easier because she is female. It's fine to disagree with her on policy, but some of that stuff is over the top by a long margin, and veers into casual sexist stereotypes.

 

From the article, and I think, important:

Quote

Colin Diersing, a former student of mine who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said. When she behaves like other politicians or changes positions, “it’s seen as dishonest”, he adds. CBS anchor Scott Pelley seemed to prove Diersing’s point when he asked Clinton: “Have you always told the truth?” She gave an honest response, “I’ve always tried to, always. Always.” Pelley said she was leaving “wiggle room”. What politician wouldn’t?

 

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Personally, my political views align more with Sanders, but I don't think Clinton would be a bad choice. It's also disheartening to see how she is  so easily dismissed as untrustworthy, not qualified enough (!!) and dishonest, which are allegations made to stick so much easier because she is female. It's fine to disagree with her on policy, but some of that stuff is over the top by a long margin, and veers into casual sexist stereotypes.

I completely agree, and I daresay that a male candidate would not be held accountable for things more properly attributable to his wife. 

I think there are valid criticisms to be made of Clinton--and they should be made!--but there seems to be a narrative that she was handed the nomination because she cast a spell on the DNC or something. Fact is, Hillary Clinton--former First Lady, two-term senator, secretary of state--is the most conventionally qualified candidate to run for the White House in a long, long time. In addition, she boxed out most of her rivals before the primaries ever began, and has a lead over her sole challenger much larger than Obama ever had on her back in '08. All of these are reflective of political skill, and isn't that at least partly what we want in a president?

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I completely agree, and I daresay that a male candidate would not be held accountable for things more properly attributable to his wife. 

I think there are valid criticisms to be made of Clinton--and they should be made!--but there seems to be a narrative that she was handed the nomination because she cast a spell on the DNC or something. Fact is, Hillary Clinton--former First Lady, two-term senator, secretary of state--is the most conventionally qualified candidate to run for the White House in a long, long time. In addition, she boxed out most of her rivals before the primaries ever began, and has a lead over her sole challenger much larger than Obama ever had on her back in '08. All of these are reflective of political skill, and isn't that at least partly what we want in a president?

Former first lady isn't a qualification.  She completed one term as a senator, and only two years of another.  4 years as Secretary of State and her biggest accomplishment was 'resetting' relations with Russia.  She did such an amazing job Obama didn't ask her to come back for his second term.  No, she doesn't have any qualifications.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BBW,

I believe Sec. Clinton chose to leave the State Dept. at the start of Pres. Obama's second term.  That's hardly unusual or an expression of distrust by the Obama Administration.  Few Sec. Of State serve two full terms.

[mormont]

I'd suggest that whether 'First Lady' counts as a qualification depends on what you actually did while First Lady, but at the very, very least it:

- grants a level of familiarity with government (particularly White House) protocol and procedure.

- gives you extensive experience on the diplomatic side.

- usually involves high-level work for good causes including healthcare, education, and the environment.

In Clinton's case, of course, it involved rather more, including policy work and direct work with elected politicians.

However, in general, I would say that the assertion that 'First Lady isn't a qualification' is based on an assumption that the role of the First Lady involves nothing more demanding than picking out curtains.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Money Laundering = Corruption

Do you consider funneling money through state parties to bypass individual contribution caps money laundering? 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'd suggest that whether 'First Lady' counts as a qualification depends on what you actually did while First Lady, but at the very, very least it:

- grants a level of familiarity with government (particularly White House) protocol and procedure.

- gives you extensive experience on the diplomatic side.

- usually involves high-level work for good causes including healthcare, education, and the environment.

In Clinton's case, of course, it involved rather more, including policy work and direct work with elected politicians.

However, in general, I would say that the assertion that 'First Lady isn't a qualification' is based on an assumption that the role of the First Lady involves nothing more demanding than picking out curtains.

A familiarity with White House protocol and procedure isn't really that great of a boon.  Nearly every other President got along just fine without it.

As for extensive experience, sure you got to go to some dinners and meet diplomats.  How much negotiation do you really think is involved as First Lady?

Sure, there is some work directing good causes.  In the grand scheme of Presidential candidates, how valuable is that really?  Is Michelle Obama's work on school nutrition really a good primer for being President?

Sure there is more to being the First Lady than picking out curtains.  None of it is preparation for actually being President though.

[Fez]

8 hours ago, Inigima said:

We should be running decent left wing candidates whether the Donald is a serious contender or not. The Democrats' frequent failure to run someone the left would actually like in office is sad and makes us dislike the party.

Really pulling for Feingold. I like the guy quite a lot and IIRC he was one of the few who understood How To Computer, but I would also love to see Wisconsin throw that know-nothing shitstain Ron Johnson out on the same ear that no accurate information ever penetrates.

In most cases that's not really a problem of national party, its that in many places the state party is absolutely incompetent. The DNC can, and sometimes does, directly recruit candidates for races, but usually only the very high profile ones. It far more often relies on the state party, as the organization on the ground, to identify and recruit candidates for the vast majority of House, state legislature, and local races. And in pretty much every state outside of New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the West Coast (and a couple other places, like Iowa and Kentucky) the state Democratic party has basically collapsed. And when candidates do still win, its because they did it on their own or because the national party got involved.

The DNC needs to be rebuilding the state parties, but that's long, slow, unglamorous work; which far too many Democratic activists generally avoid. And most DNC resources end up going towards Senate and Presidential races.

[Lyanna Stark]

33 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Former first lady isn't a qualification.  She completed one term as a senator, and only two years of another.  4 years as Secretary of State and her biggest accomplishment was 'resetting' relations with Russia.  She did such an amazing job Obama didn't ask her to come back for his second term.  No, she doesn't have any qualifications.

As mormont said, doesn't that depend on what she actually did in that position?

Further, I find that sneering sort of commentary an example of the casual sexism I often see attributed to Clinton. Again I agree with mormont, that this seems to imply she might as well have been First Curtain-picker. The fact that she has been First Lady seems to be something held against her, for the sole reason that being First Lady is seen as akin to being some sort of glorified trophy, which infers that she is a brainless, incompetent pretty face whose only skill was standing next to her husband and smile. It also builds on the prejudice that married women automatically just become accessories to their husbands and cease to be their own person.

How about looking at how she compares to her competitors instead? Is she more qualified than Trump, or Mr Machine-gun bacon (if we now count him in) or Sanders? From an outsider's point of view, this doesn't even seem to be any questions here, so I fail to understand why her qualifications are even in question. If she were a man, I'd bet you my old boots this would never have become an issue at all.

 

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I completely agree, and I daresay that a male candidate would not be held accountable for things more properly attributable to his wife. 

I think there are valid criticisms to be made of Clinton--and they should be made!--but there seems to be a narrative that she was handed the nomination because she cast a spell on the DNC or something. Fact is, Hillary Clinton--former First Lady, two-term senator, secretary of state--is the most conventionally qualified candidate to run for the White House in a long, long time.

That she should have to suffer for what her husband did some 20 odd years ago is outrageous and awful. And yes, sexist. Unfortunately not surprising, however. Completely agree that people can disagree with her on policy, but the "unqualified" and "not trustworthy" thing is really depressing to hear since the absolute bulk of it is really just a thin veneer over casual sexism.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

That she should have to suffer for what her husband did some 20 odd years ago is outrageous and awful. And yes, sexist. Unfortunately not surprising, however. Completely agree that people can disagree with her on policy, but the "unqualified" and "not trustworthy" thing is really depressing to hear since the absolute bulk of it is really just a thin veneer over casual sexism.

That's somewhat disingenuous. While some of it is certainly rooted in sexism, some of it is also self inflicted by Clinton. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I think a lot of the very general, abstract talk about Clinton, and criticisms of talk about Clinton, is not very helpful in disentangling some of the issues surrounding her. I think it's unfair to suggest that her time as First Lady doesn't count towards her qualifications, especially considering how active she was in shaping and advocating for policy. On the other hand, if you're going to credit her for holding what amounted to an unappointed, cabinet-level position inside the Clinton administration, you can't simply hand waive away as sexism all of the criticisms of Hillary for things that Bill did. When you're part of an administration, especially in a high-level position (even if unofficial), you necessarily carry some of the baggage of that administration with you. That doesn't mean that everything Bill did is available for use against Hillary, but it does mean that some of it certainly should be, and we're going to have to take each claim on its merits, rather than just uncritically accepting or rejecting as sexist the possibility. 

[Lyanna Stark]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's somewhat disingenuous. While some of it is certainly rooted in sexism, some of it is also self inflicted by Clinton. 

The degree to which it is leveled is out of proportion, and the reason it is so is due to Clinton being female.

 

EDIT: Or, as someone with great words put it in the post above mine (sorry Nestor ).

Criticising policy is fair and should be done.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Former first lady isn't a qualification.  She completed one term as a senator, and only two years of another.  4 years as Secretary of State and her biggest accomplishment was 'resetting' relations with Russia.  She did such an amazing job Obama didn't ask her to come back for his second term.  No, she doesn't have any qualifications.

 

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

A familiarity with White House protocol and procedure isn't really that great of a boon.  Nearly every other President got along just fine without it.

As for extensive experience, sure you got to go to some dinners and meet diplomats.  How much negotiation do you really think is involved as First Lady?

Sure, there is some work directing good causes.  In the grand scheme of Presidential candidates, how valuable is that really?  Is Michelle Obama's work on school nutrition really a good primer for being President?

Sure there is more to being the First Lady than picking out curtains.  None of it is preparation for actually being President though.

I think you're being overly dismissive here, but I'm not getting into a "no I'm not, yes you are" thing. Clinton's record is available for all to see and I don't need to defend that. First Ladies get to see a LOT of what goes on in the Oval Office, and Hillary saw a lot more than the average First Lady because she actually worked with policy. 

Also, your assertion that Clinton has no qualifications is patently absurd. I guess by your lights winning a Senate seat two times running and being appointed secretary of state is just a breeze. If that's true, excuse me while I go get Obama to make me ambassador to the UK. It's so easy!

Finally, Obama did not have to "invite" Clinton back to serve during his second term. The SoS serves until she resigns or is dismissed by the president, and to my knowledge she was not dismissed. She resigned.

[Ormond]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's somewhat disingenuous. While some of it is certainly rooted in sexism, some of it is also self inflicted by Clinton.

I think a lot of the influence of sexism on judgment of women politicians is precisely that their character flaws, whatever they are, are magnified in the minds of voters while the same character flaws are minimized for men.

I believe that sexism leads people to expect women, especially if they are in leadership positions, to be perfect all-nurturing Great Mother figures, and any marring of that image by normal human flaws gets them more negative evaluation than a man would get. The same issues that would be excusable as signs of "toughness" in a male politician are seen as disqualifying signs of unworthy motives and uncaring ambition in a woman.

I don't think this is limited to women politicians on the left or in the USA. I still think that the loathing by those on the left in the UK for Margaret Thatcher was over the top. I think a male politician with the same right wing positions and the same character flaws would have been disliked, but not completely despised to the degree Thatcher was. Her personality just violated that "nurturing Great Mother" stereotype too much.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

The degree to which it is leveled is out of proportion, and the reason it is so is due to Clinton being female.

Oh I agree. I'm just saying there are also a ton of examples of her acting in a dishonest way. She gets punished for it more than her male counterparts, but that doesn't mean the claims of dishonesty are fabricated out of nothing.

[TrackerNeil]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh I agree. I'm just saying there are also a ton of examples of her acting in a dishonest way. She gets punished for it more than her male counterparts, but that doesn't mean the claims of dishonesty are fabricated out of nothing.

But it does mean we should take accusations of dishonesty as often overblown and sometimes baseless.