US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[DireWolfSpirit]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, thought this was interesting - Sanders isn't doing well with 'true' independents.The idea here is that Sanders has done well with people who self-classify as independent, but those people are if anything far left of what the Democratic party is and are only choosing to not be Democrats because it isn't left enough for them. (these people also almost always vote Democrat regardless, so Clinton is likely to pick them up in the general anyway, or at worst they won't vote at all). 

But the independents in the general tend to largely be centrists, or unaffiliated with a party because they pick on non-political leaning points of views - and on those, Sanders is basically tied with Clinton. (the really important thing is that Trump is completely hosed with them).

 

My gut feeling was always this for some time. These (the Bernie wing) are voters like Nader supporters previously, who want to push as far left as they can, only a minuscule fraction (less than 1%) of them would actually vote for Trump.

[Kalbear]

Quote

Edit: Though, I guess the fear is if Bernie doesn't get it this time, we're stuck with the "status quo" for eight years if Hillary wins. I don't agree with that, there are a lot of reasons Obama didn't finish what he wanted, but considering what he walked into, we're in a lot better shape aren't we? So I guess as I keep tacking on here, what I want to say is a lot want change now, but it doesn't mean they're right.

Well...no. Things have changed in 8 years. Big banks have started to shrink quite a bit and now cannot have too much risk. Homosexuals can marry who they want. 20 million more people have health insurance. The US has opened up talks with Iran, Vietnam, and Cuba - all for the first time in over 30 years. 

That isn't to say that there aren't things to improve, but the dirty secret of democracy is that things take time. Obama had a great speech on this - which is that even if you are 100% right about something and the other side is 100% wrong, you still have to compromise if you want to get anything done. And that pisses me off! And it pisses you off too, and that sucks, but that is the nature of Democracy, and that's a good thing. Authoritarian dictatorship is awesome when said dictator is benevolent, fair and on your side because you get things done super fast. That's great! But it really, really sucks when it isn't on your side. Democracy has the advantage of not turning over too fast no matter what. 

The other secret is that if Bernie wins you are still almost certainly stuck with the status quo. He isn't going to get universal healthcare passed. He isn't going to be able to break up the banks in any meaningful way, and Obama is right now doing all the things that he can to limit their power that don't require congress. He isn't going to be able to get a national $15 minimum wage, and it's very unclear that he should want to do that everywhere, anyway. He isn't going to get rid of Super PACs any more than Clinton is - either they can get their court overturn in the supreme court or they can't, but both candidates are going to get kind of the same people in there (or at least try). The appointees that Sanders can do are likely going to be from pretty much the same pool of people too. 

The one thing that might work is his education system ideas. The problem there is that they require buy-in from the states to work, and that would mean about 5-7 states in total would do it.

The one worry that a lot of people have is that Clinton would be more likely to get us into another war. And that's fair. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

29 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Even Sarah Palin, who by all accounts shouldn't have been on the national stage, was pummeled unfairly. I read a book by the sociolinguist William Labov, and he studied the speech patterns of Palin versus Obama and found that both (back in that election cycle anyway) used speech patterns that differed greatly from the "English standard." Palin's was exaggerated in the media and she was crucified for it. Now, she has since gone into meltdown mode on that, but back then Labov demonstrated that she, ultimately, spoke no differently than those around her. It was interesting that Obama, as an African-American, received a pass when he deviated from standard speech patterns, while Palin was hit much harder. Labov didn't make any conclusions on this, but I think this alone demonstrates that men, in general, get a much wider lane to operate in than women.

Honestly, this sounded like total nonsense to me. So I did a google search and located this, which is a pre-publication draft of Labov's "Politics of Language Change" which addresses some of the dialectic similarities between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. As regards to their 'dialectic comparison' - the ONLY element of their respective speech that Labor seems to be comparing is their tendency to drop the "g" in -ING words. For example, saying "good mornin" instead of "good morning." On that, Labov found that they were basically identical in their tendency to drop "g"s from these words.

I'm not going to pretend I've read the entire book. But if this is an accurate representation of what's in it, there remains a HUGE divergence in the "speech patterns" of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, that have less to do with their regional dialect and how they pronounce words, and everything to do with Sarah Palin's complete inability to string together a coherent paragraph of sentences. 

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

But if this is an accurate representation of what's in it, there remains a HUGE divergence in the "speech patterns" of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, that have less to do with their regional dialect and how they pronounce words, and everything to do with Sarah Palin's complete inability to string together a coherent paragraph of sentences. 

I totally agree.  Both Obama and Palin were relative newcomers to the political scene in 2008.  But Obama was able to  give speeches and interviews that demonstrated a command of many political subjects.  Palin utterly failed at this. 

I think that the worst moment of the campaign for her was the response to "what newspapers and magazines do you read?" with "all of 'em", which is just a stunningly bad answer.  I mean, assuming that you do get your news from somewhere, you should just tell the truth.  Failing that, just name a mainstream publication.  If you have to punt on this kind of a softball question, how could you possibly be President?

[lokisnow]

36 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Agreed. My earlier point was a lot of people want change now, and it isn't going to happen. I felt like Lokisnow was saying that a lot of people wanting change now could be dismissed because Bernie didn't win. The supporters have been impatient and irrational. It's like they suddenly woke up and want it fixed now. That's not the way it works.

Edit: Though, I guess the fear is if Bernie doesn't get it this time, we're stuck with the "status quo" for eight years if Hillary wins. I don't agree with that, there are a lot of reasons Obama didn't finish what he wanted, but considering what he walked into, we're in a lot better shape aren't we? So I guess as I keep tacking on here, what I want to say is a lot want change now, but it doesn't mean they're right. 

Obama didn't finish what he wanted for one reason. Howard Dean was no longer in charge of the DNC. The only reason Obama accomplished a single feat is because of the Achievements Dean wrought in elections prior to and concurrent with Obama's election.

Without that. Obama has nothing, and since removing Dean, Obama has had nothing. Just as the next president, if a democrat, will have nothing.

But hey, we got a great bargain on a telemarketer-in-chief DNC head! so it equalled out, right?

If you don't have a legislature, you have nothing.

"you don't have the votes!"

Dean believed in relentlessly and systematically leveraging all tools towards the end of growing democrat legislature. States and Federal.

DWS believes in relentlessly and systematically growing the democrat telemarketing department, if state and federal legislatures shrink as a result, well that just means that they are "unwinnable"

[DanteGabriel]

38 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

 

Edit: Though, I guess the fear is if Bernie doesn't get it this time, we're stuck with the "status quo" for eight years if Hillary wins. I don't agree with that, there are a lot of reasons Obama didn't finish what he wanted, but considering what he walked into, we're in a lot better shape aren't we? So I guess as I keep tacking on here, what I want to say is a lot want change now, but it doesn't mean they're right. 

I'm glad you put "status quo" in quotes, because I'm starting to think it's a misleading term. Things never stand still. They are always changing in one direction or another. Obama has been a disappointment to many progressives, and sometimes with good reason. But in terms of awareness of gender and racial injustice, I think the country has evolved in a much more progressive direction than it would have under McCain or Romney. That's not to credit Obama for all the progress that's been made, but he has at least been supportive of these changes, and I believe the President's stance on issues does help frame perception and debate for the general public. At the very least a President can oppose or veto regressive legislation. Where would same-sex marriage or transgender rights or increased scrutiny on police misconduct be under a Romney administration and a Republican Congress?

So I don't believe Clinton would have a status quo presidency, because society will change one way or the other in her time. If she's pushed by an active and constructive progressive wing of the party, hopefully headed by Sanders and Warren, she can help continue the direction we've been going in.

I think Clinton supporters and detractors can agree she's always got a finger in the wind. I think progressives' best bet for change now is to get Clinton elected and press her from the left and convince her that there is a viable coalition to support the things they want. And they  have to fucking get involved and campaign and find good candidates and vote during midterm elections.

 

ETA: Sorry Simon, there is no way I can take seriously any comparisons between Obama and Palin's speech patterns. He was a constitutional law professor for fuck's sake. His use of colloquial speech is nothing like Palin's word salad of resentment and ignorance. It's fair to say there was an element of misogyny to the criticism she received, but my God she's an awful dingbat.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I think that's really easy to say now when she didn't actually run.  

Of course it is. Reckless speculation is always easy to do. 

 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Even Sarah Palin, who by all accounts shouldn't have been on the national stage, was pummeled unfairly. I read a book by the sociolinguist William Labov, and he studied the speech patterns of Palin versus Obama and found that both (back in that election cycle anyway) used speech patterns that differed greatly from the "English standard." Palin's was exaggerated in the media and she was crucified for it. Now, she has since gone into meltdown mode on that, but back then Labov demonstrated that she, ultimately, spoke no differently than those around her. It was interesting that Obama, as an African-American, received a pass when he deviated from standard speech patterns, while Palin was hit much harder.

You are making me feel sympathy for Sarah Palin, for crying out loud. Knock it off. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Honestly, this sounded like total nonsense to me. So I did a google search and located this, which is a pre-publication draft of Labov's "Politics of Language Change" which addresses some of the dialectic similarities between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. As regards to their 'dialectic comparison' - the ONLY element of their respective speech that Labor seems to be comparing is their tendency to drop the "g" in -ING words. For example, saying "good mornin" instead of "good morning." On that, Labov found that they were basically identical in their tendency to drop "g"s from these words.

I'm not going to pretend I've read the entire book. But if this is an accurate representation of what's in it, there remains a HUGE divergence in the "speech patterns" of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, that have less to do with their regional dialect and how they pronounce words, and everything to do with Sarah Palin's complete inability to string together a coherent paragraph of sentences. 

 

That's exactly the study, g dropping, and who gets hammered for it. But you have to consider Palin now and Palin then, and Labov's work (and any sociolinguist) is to remove ideological context to evaluate how social factors influence speech patterns. Palin and her g dropping back in 08 are infamous, Palin and her incoherent ramblings cropped up later. She didn't speak as much back then.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I totally agree.  Both Obama and Palin were relative newcomers to the political scene in 2008.  But Obama was able to  give speeches and interviews that demonstrated a command of many political subjects.  Palin utterly failed at this. 

I think that the worst moment of the campaign for her was the response to "what newspapers and magazines do you read?" with "all of 'em", which is just a stunningly bad answer.  I mean, assuming that you do get your news from somewhere, you should just tell the truth.  Failing that, just name a mainstream publication.  If you have to punt on this kind of a softball question, how could you possibly be President?

 

 

 

 

Well, that's why it's worth reading the chapter. Certainly Palin botched a number of things, but the issues are being mixed up. The media hit heavily for "g" dropping when Obama did it exactly the same amount. I'll dig out the book and find the referenced articles. But it wasn't about policy, it wasn't about anything except speech patterns, and based purely on this: there is a big difference between how men and women are treated. Labov chose Palin to illustrate his point, I'm sure, in a way that would garner attention. But it doesn't change the results. Women are expected to be keepers of "correct speech" in American society, they are not allowed to deviate. 

Imagine if Hillary dropped the f bomb as Donald did. Or spoke of feminism in frank terms in the way Obama spoke of race in frank terms on Marc Maron's podcast. She would be hit HARD for breaking this...type of cultural hegemony. I carry no love for Palin, but I think her case is particularly interesting. If you can separate from the obvious flaws and look at this specific instance of gender difference, at least for me it makes it easier to identify it elsewhere. 

 

DanteGabriel--I put status quo in quotes because I'm not buying into it either. I've been disenfranchised with Obama's eight years, but when I think of the issues Kal has raised that have gone through, or how my son who had Leukemia when he was 4 now won't be hit with prior history on his health insurance, or the congressional stonewalling, the awful state of affairs of America when he stepped in, etc., saying that Obama (and in turn Clinton) was/will be "more of the same" isn't fair.

And as to Palin--she's only worse now than then, but that's no defense. Labov, I believe, is as liberal as they come, so I feel like if we can look at his findings without our Palin bias influencing it, then he makes a good point. But perhaps reading his words in the book is necessary to make the point--he is a far better writer, far smarter man than I am/ever will be. But the book is dry as hell. I wouldn't recommend rushing out and buying Dialect Diversity in America.

 

[Kalbear]

Palin being called sexist epithets is one of the more interesting, sociologically, things I've seen in a while. 

Wonk time: check out and spend hours playing with electoral college math and projections here. It should be heartening to know that even with the current polls having Clinton tied with Trump, the only way Trump wins is if everything breaks his way, whereas the 'typical' result would be about a 100+ EC win for Clinton with a potential 200+ EC win.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Ahum, wasn't Palin's syntax an issue from the get-go. IIRC Palin dropping the g just added to that hillbilly image. Mainly because it's a typically southern thing. Cue Cletus Spuckler.

[DanteGabriel]

I don't doubt the reaction to Palin was supercharged by her gender, but dropping Gs has nothing to do with the response she got for her infamous remarks about Putin rearing his head in Alaskan airspace or her inability to name a newspaper she reads. 

[Dr. Pepper]

I'd be interested in comparison with Palin and Dubya and whether or not one was more charged by gender.  Bush has entire books devoted to his failures in speech.  Some of them were epic, though I must admit that some were a bit offensive as they attacked accent and regional dialect rather than ability (or inability) to convey an idea.  

It's weird to compare Palin and Obama when there really aren't any similarities in how they convey ideas through speech. 

[Kalbear]

Palin is an excellent improvisational speaker. Similar to Trump, actually, though her ideas tend to have less rational coherence. 

Obama is an excellent speaker, period. His tone and inflection is almost perfectly suited to convey emotional and intellectual importance, he uses the preacher's tricks of rising in the middle and lowering at the end so that you follow his sentences with greater attention (this is also a favored trick of Frank Underwood in House of Cards). He has very few vocal ticks or oddities. He has almost flawless enunciation. And he manages to speak with clear conviction. Obama is going to be studied as one of the best political speakers that we have recordings of. 

[alguien]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Without that. Obama has nothing, and since removing Dean, Obama has had nothing. Just as the next president, if a democrat, will have nothing.

Was Obama behind replacing Dean with DWS? Why is that?

One of the only points of agreement I've read across all corners of the Democrat spectrum is that she isn't very effective as DNC chair. Aside from that, I know very little about her policies (or Dean's, as DNC chair, for that matter).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, alguien said:

Was Obama behind replacing Dean with DWS? Why is that?

This article should help you out:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/dean-steps-down-as-dnc-chair/?_r=0

11 minutes ago, alguien said:

One of the only points of agreement I've read across all corners of the Democrat spectrum is that she isn't very effective as DNC chair. Aside from that, I know very little about her policies (or Dean's, as DNC chair, for that matter).

She isn't an effective DNC Chair. @lokisnow laid it out perfectly. She cares mostly about raising money rather than growing the party at every level across the country.

As far as her politics, she's a very socially liberal, corporate friendly Democrat. The issue she gets the most flack for is her support of payday lenders (which is gross Imo). Here's another article on that issue you can mull over if you'd like:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-payday-lenders_us_56e1a9d6e4b065e2e3d50764

 

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

So yeah, blame Big Banks deregulation despite repeated studies indicating that deregulation of banks wasn't the cause of things. Choose to punish the officials at the big banks for...um...some crime, despite there not actually being any crime to punish for.

This is a discrepancy due to the languages used by common people and the ruling class (including their servants in the media and academia). In plain speech, there were crimes (example: robo-signing): they were widespread, blatant and acknowledged as crimes by a wide range of cultures spread across both space and time (forgery and fraud have been crimes as long as there have been legal documents). However, the banks which orchestrated these crimes have significant input into both the laws that govern them and (indirectly) the selection of the people who are supposed to enforce these laws. Thus, time and time again, the banks get off with a fine (astoundingly large compared to the money typically handled by ordinary Americans, but small compared to the income of the banks) and nobody goes to prison which leads to statements like the one in your second sentence quoted above.

Similarly, studies exonerating deregulation typically focus on a specific law and conclude that this law alone would not have made much of a difference -- and again, they might be technically correct (economic statements of this nature are difficult to prove), but missing the point. Deregulation is not just a single law, but a combination of laws and enforcement actions (or lack thereof) during the Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama administrations.

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This article should help you out:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/dean-steps-down-as-dnc-chair/?_r=0

 

 

Thank you, another reason Rahm Emanuel was terrible!

Can you imagine if Dean were secretary of Health and Human services?  Not only would we have had Sebelius in the Senate all this time. But the rollout of the ACA website would have been flawless!

[Shryke]

Aye. Part of the issue back then was Dean vs Rahm and Obama and others, sadly, sided with Rahm.

A bad move as Rahm's subsequent actions have shown.