U.S. Elections: 3rd Party Masturbatory Fantasies

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I agree Sanders will lose Michigan, perhaps in part due to Clinton's auto bailout distortion, but he absolutely did not oppose the auto bailout. He voted for it the only time it came up as a standalone issue:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/hillary-clinton/michigan-hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-was-a/

Quote

 

However — and this is what Clinton is talking about — Sanders voted to block the release of the second half of the TARP funding, including the auto bailout funds, while Clinton voted for the funds. (Sanders opposed and Clinton supported the initial TARP bill.)

Sanders said he opposed bailout funding for financial firms, which is where the majority of TARP dollars were headed.

 

Its not the auto bailout people usually think of (which is why politifact rated Clinton's statement only half-true), but it was a bailout, and he tried to block it. That's all that will matter to a lot of Michigan voters, not whether Sanders had good reasons for that specific vote.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

No - where did you get that?  Did you read it?

I did.  Disgreeing with Sec. Clinton on foreign policy issues is a perfectly rational reason to not want to vote for her that has nothing to do with privilege.  Throwing out privilege, as the author does, implies sexism on the part of those who do not want to vote for Sec. Clinton.

[Kalbear]

Scot, no.

It implies that voting for trump or cruz, or really not doing whatever you can to get a Democrat in office, is due to privilege. Clinton's sex or race doesn't matter here. What matters is your privilege to not be a muslim, or hispanic. What matters is your privilege to not have insurance under the ACA. What matters is your privilege to likely not be tortured. What matters is your privilege to not be living wherever cruz carpet bombs.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/hillary-clinton/michigan-hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-was-a/

Its not the auto bailout people usually think of (which is why politifact rated Clinton's statement only half-true), but it was a bailout, and he tried to block it. That's all that will matter to a lot of Michigan voters, not whether Sanders had good reasons for that specific vote.

 

Sorry, I forgot to link the Nation article I quoted from. All of the above is covered in the full article.

He voted to block release of TARP funds unless there was reform (which many Democrats called for), and at the time it was not clear how much of the remaining funds would go to bailing out the auto industry. When he had a chance to vote specifically for the auto bailout, he voted for it.

Now, you may be correct that Clinton's lie will fool Michigan voters, but that doesn't mean it's any less a lie.

[BloodRider]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I did.  Disgreeing with Sec. Clinton on foreign policy issues is a perfectly rational reason to not want to vote for her that has nothing to do with privilege.  Throwing out privilege, as the author does, implies sexism on the part of those who do not want to vote for Sec. Clinton.

No it doesn't, and I don't think you really understand what privilege means.  You are dragging sexism into it, and that's on you.  I kinda hate the word anyway, because it should not be a privilege to have access to rights, and government support.  I think it should be called access, or some such.  Plus I can not spell the damn thing.  

Anyway, let me put it this way - do you think that having access to money means on average that person have access to better representation in a court of law?  That seems fairly uncontroversial.  Yet this is a form of privileged.  One that has noting to do with sexism, btw.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TN,

If the total of the popular vote was the determiner of victory in the race for the US Presidency, you'd be correct.  As you are well aware it is not.  US Presidential campaigns are all about counting the electoral votes, as I'm also sure you are well aware.  I believe DB is saying the Gore campaign made mistakes in its electoral math.  A win in Vermont or Tennessee means Florida would have been irrelevant and the recounts and confusion there would have been a mere historical footnote rather than the months long crapfest it was.

Yes, I understand all that, but let's not pretend that Al Gore did not persuade enough voters to win. He just didn't persuade them in the right places--or so said the Supreme Court. The 2000 race was so close I don't think we can draw too many lessons from it, except that control of the Supreme Court is way more important than we previously thought.

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Scot, no.

It implies that voting for trump or cruz, or really not doing whatever you can to get a Democrat in office, is due to privilege. Clinton's sex or race doesn't matter here. What matters is your privilege to not be a muslim, or hispanic. What matters is your privilege to not have insurance under the ACA. What matters is your privilege to likely not be tortured. What matters is your privilege to not be living wherever cruz carpet bombs.

Maybe Sanders supporters think he's just the better candidate.  It's a legitimate point of view, I think.  Just as it's legitimate for people to vote for someone other than a Democratic candidate.

[Altherion]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I did.  Disgreeing with Sec. Clinton on foreign policy issues is a perfectly rational reason to not want to vote for her that has nothing to do with privilege.  Throwing out privilege, as the author does, implies sexism on the part of those who do not want to vote for Sec. Clinton.

The word "privilege" has officially been abused to the point where it is actively confusing. In my opinion, both the argument and the use of the word in this context are utterly moronic, but I'll try to explain. The article does not mean "male privilege", it means generic "privilege" in the sense that the author of the article believes the readers being addressed (i.e. Sanders supporters who will not vote if Clinton is the nominee) to be capable of surviving and/or thriving under a Republican President better than some hypothetical group. In the extremely tortured sense used by the article, this is a "privilege" they have over said hypothetical group which the article claims allows them not to vote.

Aside: wow, that sounds even more idiotic when I've written it down than when it was in my head.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

The word "privilege" has officially been abused to the point where it is actively confusing. In my opinion, both the argument and the use of the word in this context are utterly moronic, but I'll try to explain. The article does not mean "male privilege", it means generic "privilege" in the sense that the author of the article believes the readers being addressed (i.e. Sanders supporters who will not vote if Clinton is the nominee) to be capable of surviving and/or thriving under a Republican President better than some hypothetical group. In the extremely tortured sense used by the article, this is a "privilege" they have over said hypothetical group which the article claims allows them not to vote.

Aside: wow, that sounds even more idiotic when I've written it down than when it was in my head.

Ahhh... what a wonderfully tortured way of saying you shouldn't be able to vote as you choose.

[mormont]

3 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Now, you may be correct that Clinton's lie will fool Michigan voters, but that doesn't mean it's any less a lie.

It's not a lie, though. It's true that Sanders did vote against that release of the funds.

Of course, it's true also that he did so because he opposed other measures tied to that. But then again, it's also true to say that what that means is, Sanders decided to prefer his opposition to releasing the TARP funds over his support for releasing the auto bailout funds.

Which is more or less what the article BloodRider linked to is saying. Sanders' principled opposition to TARP is laudable, and his decision may have been the right one overall: but if you're a soon-to-be-jobless auto worker desperate for those funds to be released, you're not afforded the luxury of looking at the situation overall. You just know you needed that money released. So for those people, what Clinton is saying is absolutely true: Sanders opposed the release of that money. They don't necessarily care why he did it, whether it was for the right reasons, or whether he voted for another bailout package instead.

If you're a Sanders supporter, I can quite see why you want to label this as a lie, but what I think you really mean is it's unfair and selective: which are both fair enough. But it can be both those things and still not be a lie.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's not a lie, though. It's true that Sanders did vote against that release of the funds.

Of course, it's true also that he did so because he opposed other measures tied to that. But then again, it's also true to say that what that means is, Sanders decided to prefer his opposition to releasing the TARP funds over his support for releasing the auto bailout funds.

Which is more or less what the article BloodRider linked to is saying. Sanders' principled opposition to TARP is laudable, and his decision may have been the right one overall: but if you're a soon-to-be-jobless auto worker desperate for those funds to be released, you're not afforded the luxury of looking at the situation overall. You just know you needed that money released. So for those people, what Clinton is saying is absolutely true: Sanders opposed the release of that money. They don't necessarily care why he did it, whether it was for the right reasons, or whether he voted for another bailout package instead.

If you're a Sanders supporter, I can quite see why you want to label this as a lie, but what I think you really mean is it's unfair and selective: which are both fair enough. But it can be both those things and still not be a lie.

Clinton said: "[Sanders] was against the auto bailout"

That is an outright lie. He was for the auto bailout, as evidenced by his vote for it:

Quote

Sanders (and Clinton, too) voted in favor of the December separate auto bailout.

"I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls," Sanders said, according to Vermont Public Radio, explaining why he supported the measure.

When she says he voted against the release of TARP funds that Obama would later use for a massive auto bailout, that it is true, but deliberately unfair. It was not clear how much of those funds would be used to bailout the auto industry at the time of the vote:

Quote

It’s unclear how much of the second half of TARP funds Obama intended to use for the auto bailout at the time. In a letter to congressional leaders encouraging them to release the funds, Obama economic adviser Larry Summers said only that auto companies would "only receive additional assistance in the context of a comprehensive restructuring designed to achieve long-term viability."

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's not a lie, though. It's true that Sanders did vote against that release of the funds.

Of course, it's true also that he did so because he opposed other measures tied to that. But then again, it's also true to say that what that means is, Sanders decided to prefer his opposition to releasing the TARP funds over his support for releasing the auto bailout funds.

Which is more or less what the article BloodRider linked to is saying. Sanders' principled opposition to TARP is laudable, and his decision may have been the right one overall: but if you're a soon-to-be-jobless auto worker desperate for those funds to be released, you're not afforded the luxury of looking at the situation overall. You just know you needed that money released. So for those people, what Clinton is saying is absolutely true: Sanders opposed the release of that money. They don't necessarily care why he did it, whether it was for the right reasons, or whether he voted for another bailout package instead.

If you're a Sanders supporter, I can quite see why you want to label this as a lie, but what I think you really mean is it's unfair and selective: which are both fair enough. But it can be both those things and still not be a lie.

It's one of those comments that is both strictly true, and also entirely misleading.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

It's one of those comments that is both strictly true, and also entirely misleading.

 

There are two claims here.

1) "[Sanders] was against the auto bailout"

2) "[Sanders] voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry."

The first is patently false- he voted in favor of bailing out the auto industry. The second is 'both strictly true, and also entirely misleading.'

[Demonblade]

Take a look at the primary results of both parties. Use Oklahoma as an example. In Oklahoma, GOP voters voted for a non-establishment candidate more than twice as much as they did establishment ones. The Dem side was admittedly closer, but once Hillary is the nominee, the chattering voices for change aren't going to be on her side. Now I don't have a dog in this hunt, but if I did, I would be worried about a campaign for basically a third term for the most divisive administration in the modern era against a huge populist movement based on people's anger against D.C. culture.

Except this is a completely inaccurate characterization of what is occuring.

Firstly, Obama's administration is not divisive among Democrats. y.

A secondly what you are seeing on the GOP side is not a huge populist movement.

A Clinton vs Trump election would be a popular Democrat running to continue the administration of another popular Democrat against a Republican insurgent candidate with high unfavourables among both sides of the aisle who's main appeal is racism and authoritarianism.

The divisiveness of the Obama administration has not been divisive amongst Democrats, but by no means has it not been divisive amongst the general population. People have strong opinions of Obama, and for various reasons, this president has had to deal with unprecedented obstruction throughout his presidency.

As for Trump not being a populist movement, this may be proven true in the upcoming primaries, it so far whenever a candidate drops out, his support increases. Once he becomes the nominee and he has enough time to disavow and deflect some of his more inflammatory statements, you will see his support increase. It's not just racists who are found to be supporting him, he has been getting support from many sources. Again, when you have an established candidate running for basically a third term against somebody who is tapping into the multitude of people dissatisfied with Obama (for whatever reason), the side with the motivation for change has been successful in recent examples.

[BloodRider]

29 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ahhh... what a wonderfully tortured way of saying you shouldn't be able to vote as you choose.

No - again with the non reading comprehension.  You get a D.    

It is saying it is wrong to pretend there are no consequences to how you vote, and recognize that you are not the only one who has to face the consequences of your choices.  And there are those who can ill afford your stand on principal.

Which, as I said earlier, is how the investment bankers behaved when they were faced with a choice where the downside didn't impact them.  They plowed ahead, let others take the risk, and then blamed those who got the fallout.  In other words, Sanders supporters who do not vote for a Dem in the general face a moral hazard,* to put it in terms I have heard you use.

*Now that I think about it, being exposed to a moral hazard is linked to having privilege.   I haven't got the time to parse that analogy right now though.  I will have to ponder it.

[lokisnow]

Bernie Sanders or bust? That's a stance based on privilege

 

scot said

 

You're a sexist if you don't want to vote for Sec. Clinton?

What? No.

What the article is getting at is this, imagine two Democrat voters:

A) a white upper middle class Sanders supporter in contemplating a Trump presidency might think, "ugh, that stinks, oh well I'll move to Canada (not really), haha."

B ) a lower or middle class religious and / or ethnic minority Clinton supporter in contemplating a Trump presidency might think, "I am legitimately terrified for the viability of my livelyhood and the personal safety and security of my family."

The article is about how the personal stakes are abstract and relatively low for the majority of Sanders supporters--a position of privilege, because they have little at risk they are free to take a risk on Sanders--while the stakes are immediate, intimate and relatively high for others and that this high level of risk is a fundamental reason why these people at risk are not taking a risk on sanders.

It is very rational, and nothing at all to do with sexism.

[Sullen]

4 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

No - again with the non reading comprehension.  You get a D.    

It is saying that to not pretend there are no consequences to how you vote, and recognize that you are not the only one who has to face the consequences of your choices.  And there are those who can ill afford your stand on principal.

Which, as I said earlier, is how the investment bankers behaved when they were faced with a choice where the downside didn't impact them.  They plowed ahead, let others take the risk, and then blamed those who got the fallout.

It's blame shifting, and a rather lazy attempt at a guilt trip.

Sanders supporters could also play the accursed privilege card for that matter, and state that they cannot afford another crony corporatist in the White House, prolongation/reinforcement of the status quo, and that people voting for Hilary do not recognize that others are also affected by their decision. It's emotionally manipulative and intellectually dishonest.

If Clinton wants support, she should work for it, and not simply threaten "Bernie Bros" with a GOP victory while doing nothing to accommodate them. They'll vote for whoever represents their ideas the best, and if Clinton cannot do that, then it's entirely on her.

Your comparison with investor bankers is flawed, by the way, it implies rogue Sanders supporters wouldn't be impacted by a GOP victory. They would very much be impacted by it though, and they would not gain from it, they'd act out of principle, not self-interest.

[mormont]

46 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Clinton said: "[Sanders] was against the auto bailout"

That is an outright lie.

Depending what you mean by 'the auto bailout', I'd argue that it isn't an outright lie. I think you can argue that if it is a lie, it's a lie of omission, leaving out that he was for the other auto bailout.

Quote

He was for the auto bailout, as evidenced by his vote for it:

When she says he voted against the release of TARP funds that Obama would later use for a massive auto bailout, that it is true, but deliberately unfair. It was not clear how much of those funds would be used to bailout the auto industry at the time of the vote:

I understand it wasn't. But that doesn't address my main point: that Sanders still ranked his principled opposition to TARP as more important than supporting those auto workers. Even if he was right to do so, overall, that's what he did. If Clinton is characterising that as being against the auto bailout, that might be (in your view) unfair, but to an auto worker? It's probably fair.

[Ormond]

Here is a link  to an article on recent polling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-leads-gop-race-nationally-but-with-weaker-hold-on-the-party/2016/03/07/890cc8d0-e496-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

The biggest surprise for me personally here was how big the gender gap within the Republican party is right now. I would have expected Trump to be somewhat more popular with men than women, but 44% to 24% -- a 20 percent point difference -- is a good bit larger than I thought it would be. It goes to show that personal experience can really mislead on this, since the few people I personally know who are for Trump tend to be women.

It's also interesting to me that the percentage of Democrats who say they would be "dissatisfied" with Clinton or Sanders as the nominee is exactly the same, 25%. Since the Sanders supporters I personally know are more likely to express strong dislike of Clinton than Clinton supporters are to express dislike of Sanders, I would have guessed a higher percentage of "dissatisfaction" with Clinton as the nominee.

This just proves again that it's dangerous to extrapolate from samples of one's own acquaintances to what the entire country thinks. I of course knew that, but it's still momentarily surprising when you see the disconnect. 

[TrackerNeil]

31 minutes ago, Sullen said:

If Clinton wants support, she should work for it, and not simply threaten "Bernie Bros" with a GOP victory while doing nothing to accommodate them. They'll vote for whoever represents their ideas the best, and if Clinton cannot do that, then it's entirely on her.

Clinton has worked hard for party support, as evidenced by her advantage in endorsements and superdelegates. She also boxed out a number of opponents before they ever got in the race. That's the result of hard work.