US Election: poll dancing in Nevada and South Carolina

[aceluby]

50 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

You mean like not appointing a justice in an election year?

That kind of ' what virtually every president has done in the last 40 years'?

Except for the small fact that every president has made justice appointments in an election year for 50 years....

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Reminds me of the time someone in Sanders campaign called Obama an 'inadequate black male'.

Oh wait, that was a Hillary supporter in 2008 at the DNC. I don't recall the Clinton campaign being deemed guilty by association, and neither should Sanders (although these allegations were false according to snopes, and there were even claims that the 'English only' chants came from Hillary. I discounted that it had anything to do with either of the campaigns and so should everyone else)

I'm talking about the accusations of racism/sexism/otherism.  Not the incident about the translator, which didn't even happen.  This has pretty much become one of the primary weapons in the democratic arsenal.

If you didn't see this kind of thing coming, then you just haven't been paying attention.  

[aceluby]

Just now, Swordfish said:

I'm talking about the accusations of racism/sexism/otherism.  Not the incident about the translator, which didn't even happen.  This has pretty much become one of the primary weapons in the democratic arsenal.

If you didn't see this kind of thing coming, then you just haven't been paying attention.  

Lol, as if this wasn't pulled from the GOP playbook.  Where have you been for the last 100 years?  This has been the strategy for the right since before McCarthyism.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, Fez said:

Than Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn have each done more to advance progressive policy than Representative Sanders ever did. Or, if you prefer the leaders at the time he was in the House, Representatives Gephardt, Bonior, and Frost did more.

And I'm mean each one did, not collectively.

People in Democratic leadership should advance progress more than an independent Senator/Congressman.

And frankly, the comparison should be between HRC and Sanders.

[Inigima]

I'm very tired but I believe this post puts paid to the idea that justices don't get appointed in elections years: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/ John Oliver also covered this last night: 

 

[a free shadow]

19 hours ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

Trump support is rising Hollywood.

 

 

I do know everybody is serious here, but...  You can call it East Hollywood Production  

[Jaxom 1974]

14 hours ago, Triskan said:

There is also a belief that Carson is taking some revenge on Cruz by taking some of his votes when he really needs them.

Wouldn't it be rather the same if he dropped out and endorsed anyone but Cruz, who should be his logical endorsement? 

[Kelli Fury]

I would personally say as someone on the left that lawmakers who voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act and DOMA have really offset any good they could ever have done by doing that much (very foreseeable) harm. Unfortunately that was almost all of the congressional democrats.

[Kalbear]

53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

People in Democratic leadership should advance progress more than an independent Senator/Congressman.

And frankly, the comparison should be between HRC and Sanders.

Why? Clinton isn't running as a revolutionary. Her stated goal isn't to specifically advance progress as much as it is to cement the progress that has been made in the Obama administration. You might as well state that it should be between Sanders and Cruz. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

I'm talking about the accusations of racism/sexism/otherism.  Not the incident about the translator, which didn't even happen.  This has pretty much become one of the primary weapons in the democratic arsenal.

If you didn't see this kind of thing coming, then you just haven't been paying attention.  

The incident with the translation did happen. Or at least something did. From WaPo:

Quote

 

So there you have it. Right? Sanders voters can't be tarred and feathered for -- or even deemed guilty of -- Huerta's "English-only" chants claim. And Huerta appears to have misattributed the permanent chair's English-only decision to the raucous crowd.

But it's really not quite that simple.

First off, neither Huerta, the precinct's permanent chair nor the precinct captains for Clinton and Sanders could be reached for comment Sunday. Nevada Democratic Party officials, who oversee the caucuses, have yet to respond to requests for comment about events or procedure. Ferrera also declined to comment.

Second, this video really does not prove Huerta was guilty of the bias alleged by Sanders supporters; it's easy to see why she felt abused and upset after being shouted off the stage. Nor does it completely clear the Sanders supporters of all the allegations against them; some of the comments that are clearly audible in it amount to more than bad public behavior.

 

Watching the video makes it clear that the situation was ugly. It's really easy to see how  Huerta misattributed things (if she indeed did; the sound quality wasn't exactly awesome). It's also clear that she played it up a lot more. At the same time, this rally between both groups was not a particularly amenable one, and that's bad news, period. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The incident with the translation did happen. Or at least something did. From WaPo:

Watching the video makes it clear that the situation was ugly. It's really easy to see how  Huerta misattributed things (if she indeed did; the sound quality wasn't exactly awesome). It's also clear that she played it up a lot more. At the same time, this rally between both groups was not a particularly amenable one, and that's bad news, period. 

Uhh... I don't know if you've actually watched the video - I watched it here - the relevant portions being from 53:35 minutes to 56:46 minutes - but while "not particularly amenable" might be an accurate statement, "ugly" is certainly not. There was literally nothing ugly happening there. "Something" obviously happened - a Clinton supporter offered to translate into Spanish, was opposed by people supporting Bernie for perceived bias, and the person officiating the event said they would proceed in English only and some people applauded - but that's a far cry from the fanciful tale being woven by Ferrera and Huerta. 

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

You need to take a step back and consider how carefully you're even bothering to consider what's being put in front of you, instead of just having a knee jerk anti-Sanders reaction. You get basic facts wrong, and cherry pick an irrelevant point to try to diminish the worth of an organization whose existence you've only just discovered.

I'm diminishing the value of bringing it up as something of an example that Sanders has been helping others and improving the overall progressive campaign.

• He's not a leader of the caucus and as far as I can tell has never been one.
• He isn't the sole founding member of said caucus.
• The caucus does not advocate his specific platform.
• The caucus doesn't even advocate outside of congress, as far as I can tell. 
• Only 2 of them are even endorsing Sanders; the rest are either undecided or actively endorsing Clinton, making Sanders a leader of this as a frank joke.

Remember, this all started because I stated that he could have been building a group for a while now in response to this:

Quote

How exactly he is expected to satisfy your demand that he create a new faction in the party beyond what he's already doing is beyond me. The man cannot be expected to come from obscurity, take on the most famous name in Democratic politics, and at the same time, what, recruit candidates to primary challenge Democrats across the country (should we even want this?), or, conversely, manage to fund-raise for the DNC, established candidates, and state parties, even though Clinton long ago locked up almost all of their support and corralled them into a fundraising scheme with her? 'Only looking out for himself'- give me a fucking break. The man has almost no chance of winning and never did, he's not going to get anything out of this beyond the satisfaction that his message, the same one he's been pushing his entire career, has resonated with a generation of young Democrats, and you disparage him because he hasn't cleared some impossible hurdle.

And then you claimed that the CPC is representative of the thing that you yourself declared impossible or at least undesirable. Clinton locked things up last year, sure - but Sanders has been around a lot longer than that and has been part of the Democratic party for what, 16 years now? He's had the opportunity to build consensus, build a plank and a group of people that he's the leader of, support those who share his progressive views and advocate for them. He hasn't. 

Compare this to Obama, who was clearly thinking about these sort of things and along these lines as early as 2002 and possibly earlier than that.

 

7 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I responded to the charge that he "could have been building a group for a long time now"- he has been. Upon discovering this, you've just reached for ways to delegitimize it and Sanders' connection to it instead of acknowledging it.

How about you remember why you brought up said group? Sanders is a member, that's true. So are 74 other congresspeople. What makes Sanders' contribution special in that group? Shouldn't you be lauding the chairs of the CPC instead of Sanders? 

I realize that there are lots of places where they're close. I also realize that there are lots of places where Sanders' revolutionary speech - about Wall Street, banking regulations, college education and medicare for all - are no where to be found in their goals. This isn't his group; it's a group he's aligned with. That isn't him building up shit. That's him aligning with other like-minded politicians on various things, and even then it's only some of the time. 

Here's the big complaint I have, OAR. We saw in 2008 the idea of a 'revolution' coming through with change and value in Obama. And it worked to get the White House, even. Voter turnout was way higher, young people were energized, congress won a whole bunch of seats for democrats (at least in the House). People were really thrilled about it. And what happened is that the party - and Obama - threw that political capital away and lost basically all they gained in just two years. And the reason they did that is because Obama and the party didn't have a good plan about how to continue said revolution. They weren't supportive enough at the congress or local elections. They didn't have a clear plan about what they even wanted. 

Idealism isn't enough to change things, especially when you're going up against opponents who are more pragmatic and understand how local and state elections work. Getting young people to vote is great, but it's not enough by itself. 

7 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Right now Sanders is doing more to help progressive values have success than probably any politician in decades by energizing and mobilizing a generation of young Democrats around a robust progressive platform. It's a signal to every Democratic politician in the country about the direction the base is headed. And this is how Sanders' theory of 'political revolution' differs entirely from your imposition- it's not about throwing all the insufficiently progressive Democrats out of Congress and creating a left-wing Tea Party, it's about moving the conversation and changing the pressures on existing politicians so that they have to get on board.

Why do they have to get on board? 

Right now Sanders is making a ton of money in donations, and that's awesome - but it's still not enough. He's getting some people excited, but it's not nearly the turnout that 2008 or even 2012 had for elections on the democratic side; it's the lowest since 2000, IIRC. He's tapped that young vote, but it's not clear that he's tapped a moderate vote (something Obama did well) or tapped the minority vote (something that Obama and Clinton have so far done well). But in any case, I've heard this about energizing the youth and shaping the way the world is going to work in the future and doing so with hope and change and not a lot of plans. It didn't work. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

Uhh... I don't know if you've actually watched the video - I watched it here - the relevant portions being from 53:35 minutes to 56:46 minutes - but while "not particularly amenable" might be an accurate statement, "ugly" is certainly not. There was literally nothing ugly happening there. "Something" obviously happened - a Clinton supporter offered to translate into Spanish, was opposed by people supporting Bernie for perceived bias, and the person officiating the event said they would proceed in English only and some people applauded - but that's a far cry from the fanciful tale being woven by Ferrera and Huerta. 

Uhhh...I don't know if you actually watched the video either. I didn't interpret it as charitably as you did. The shouting 'get off the stage' over and over isn't a great look. As is the guy saying something like 'really'? when they bring up the desire for a translator. The whole thing seemed disorganized and messy too - lots of shouting, yelling, talking over each other, the moderator asking for people to be quiet (and them not doing that). 

I guess it's not ugly like the LA riots, but I can totally see how Huerta was pretty pissed about the treatment. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Uhhh...I don't know if you actually watched the video either. I didn't interpret it as charitably as you did. The shouting 'get off the stage' over and over isn't a great look. As is the guy saying something like 'really'? when they bring up the desire for a translator. The whole thing seemed disorganized and messy too - lots of shouting, yelling, talking over each other, the moderator asking for people to be quiet (and them not doing that). 

I guess it's not ugly like the LA riots, but I can totally see how Huerta was pretty pissed about the treatment. 

Yes, not only is it "not ugly" like the "LA riots" - obviously one of the ugliest events in American history, and therefore a remarkably high bar to come close to in ugliness. 

But I would daresay that it's "not ugly" like even "a somewhat competitive child's soccer game"  - which seems a more apt comparison in terms of ugliness. In other words, on the ugliness scale, this barely even registers. Nor does it seem particularly messy, other than the 3 minute digression about Spanish language interpreters. 

I suppose, with shouts of "Get off the stage" - in ugliness terms it's even much less ugly than a bad performance at "Showtime at the Apollo." 

[Kalbear]

Have you ever been booed off a stage, Nestor? How about being booed off a stage when you're volunteering to do something for other people? 

Showtime at the Apollo would be a good comparison, given that she's not getting paid for it, she's responding to a request for help, and the crowd gets pissed off. 

And boy, your children's soccer games must get fucking brutal. 

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

People in Democratic leadership should advance progress more than an independent Senator/Congressman.

And frankly, the comparison should be between HRC and Sanders.

I wasn't responding a comparison between Clinton and Sanders, I was responding to:

Quote

Maybe they'll consider not being shitbag, sleazeball, sellout trash

being directed towards Democratic leadership; when in fact they've done far more good than Sanders ever has.

[Kalbear]

Quote

Why should the Sanders camp accept a Clinton supporter as a translator, when the NSDP is supposed to provide a neutral translator?

Because she was volunteering at a totally impromptu request and it's better to have translation for those who don't speak English than it is to be vaguely partisan? 

[Maithanet]

Why do any states have caucuses?  Are they cheaper somehow?  Because if someone pitched the idea "it's like voting, but less organized, takes way longer and is much less transparent" I doubt it would get a lot of traction these days. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Why? Clinton isn't running as a revolutionary. Her stated goal isn't to specifically advance progress as much as it is to cement the progress that has been made in the Obama administration. You might as well state that it should be between Sanders and Cruz.

I think she's trying to advance progress, just not in the same way as Sanders or as rapidly. And again, I'd like people to compare Clinton's record along side Sander's. Clinton's record isn't as good or strong as she talks it up to be.

Why between Sanders and Cruz? That seems pointless.

38 minutes ago, Fez said:

I wasn't responding a comparison between Clinton and Sanders, I was responding to:

being directed towards Democratic leadership; when in fact they've done far more good than Sanders ever has.

Got it. I missed that. Though I personally agree with Kay Fury, that they did a lot of good and bad so it's kind of a wash.

[Kalbear]

Quote

 

I think she's trying to advance progress, just not in the same way as Sanders or as rapidly. And again, I'd like people to compare Clinton's record along side Sander's. Clinton's record isn't as good or strong as she talks it up to be.

Why between Sanders and Cruz? That seems pointless.

 

But she's not stating that she's leading a revolution. She's not stating that she's going to massively accelerate progress. That's why I compared it with Cruz - or really, compare it with whoever you like. Compare it with Kanye West for all it matters. 

I agree that Sanders has been the more progressive candidate in his stated goals (though again, what the fuck, Brady Bill?) but that wasn't what the conversation was about. It was about whether or not he's done a lot to advance the Democratic party or the party's goals, especially compared to other leading congressional democrats. And in that vein, he's not been quite so good.