U.S. Elections: 3rd Party Masturbatory Fantasies

[Sullen]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

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.

Establishment support, yes.

I'm talking about the outside support she feels entitled to.

[Altherion]

47 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

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.

It is true that there are consequences to how one votes and consequences for abstention. It is also true that some people will be affected by the election more than others. However, the transition from these statement to "Sanders supporters who do not vote for a Dem in the general face a moral hazard" makes absolutely no sense. Unless something truly amazing happens, the only possible non-Sanders Democrat in the general election is Clinton. Sanders and Clinton obviously differ on several crucial issues. Just because you think that one of them would be a good President doesn't mean you think the other one would be -- and this is true not just from a personal perspective, but in terms of how they affect various groups.

In fact, it is possible that some people who like Sanders will not merely abstain, but actually vote for a non-Clinton nominee in the general election and there is nothing immoral, irrational or "privileged" about this.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

47 minutes ago, mormont said:

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.

Depending on whether you mean the only vote specifically on bailing out the auto industry, which he supported, or another vote that was not sold as bailing out the auto industry, which he did not?

Really not remotely hard to see which vote is more relevant to characterizing his position on bailing out the auto industry. 

Quote

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.

No, he didn't. The release of TARP funds was not, at the time, being pushed as a bailout of the auto industry by one of Obama's chief advisers and advocates for release of the funds, Larry Summers (additionally, TARP funds had already been dispersed to help the auto industry, it was not clear there would be much further auto industry bailout). If it had been, then you could make a claim about weighing Sanders' opposition to TARP vs support for the auto bailout. It was not.

On top of that, it's fair to argue that if the objections of Sanders and other Democratic Senators and Representatives had been met, the ultimate outcome would not have been to block the release of TARP funds in perpetuity, but to meet some of their objections and improve the program.

Quote

Many Democrats were also upset that not much of the money was going to help distressed homeowners, as the Bush administration originally promised. The General Accountability Office was also unable to give Congress too much clarity on how the administration was spending the money.

“The refusal so far to use the money for that purpose of [foreclosure reduction] has been, I think, a violation of the intent of the bill,” an angry Barney Frank said at a hearing in 2008.

“You don’t have a comprehensive plan to deal with foreclosures [and] until you do, please don’t come here and ask for another penny. I will work 24 hours a day to make sure you don’t get another dime,” Representative Maxine Waters told Treasury officials that day.

But in January 2009, only days away from taking office, Obama asked Bush to request the release of the remaining funds, and promised better oversight and more help for homeowners. Republicans in Congress opposed the release, but most Democrats went along, though often grudgingly. Then-Senator John Kerry told reporters he would not vote to block the rest of TARP, but that “(T)here is a lot of interest up here in finding out what happened to the 350 (million dollars) that has already been spent.”

Sanders and that handful of Democrats nevertheless voted to block the funds. At the time, Sanders released a statement saying that “I have deep respect for President-elect Obama and I very much appreciate the difficult job he has in trying to remedy the economic damage done by the Bush administration’s reckless policies. Nonetheless, I have strong reservations about continuing this bailout without strong taxpayer protections written into law. I also object to using middle-class taxpayer money to bail out the exact same financial institutions whose greed and recklessness led to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

 

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FB,

So Sec. Clinton cheated (broke the explict rules of the debate) to win.

Uh....I'm not sure where you got that from Ser Scot.  Watching Bernie Sanders does not fill me with the same kind of woolly warmth that many people get out of him.  While I agree with quite a few things he says, he reminds me too much of holier-than-thou men who basically told a lot of women in the past to shut up.  Holier -than-thou is probably the wrong phrase, more like paternalistic-self-righteous-I-know-better-than-you.  That finger waving crap he does turns me right off of him.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Uh....I'm not sure where you got that from Ser Scot.  Watching Bernie Sanders does not fill me with the same kind of woolly warmth that many people get out of him.  While I agree with quite a few things he says, he reminds me too much of holier-than-thou men who basically told a lot of women in the past to shut up.  Holier -than-thou is probably the wrong phrase, more like paternalistic-self-righteous-I-know-better-than-you.  That finger waving crap he does turns me right off of him.

Agreed, his general demeanor and presentation at debates really needs work.  Very offputting. 

EDIT: Going further, it actually contributed to my belief that Clinton is more electable than Sanders.  Leaving aside the public statements and policy stances of each, I think Clinton just has a more commanding presence in a debate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Uh....I'm not sure where you got that from Ser Scot.  Watching Bernie Sanders does not fill me with the same kind of woolly warmth that many people get out of him.  While I agree with quite a few things he says, he reminds me too much of holier-than-thou men who basically told a lot of women in the past to shut up.  Holier -than-thou is probably the wrong phrase, more like paternalistic-self-righteous-I-know-better-than-you.  That finger waving crap he does turns me right off of him.

FB,

Was it Sec. Clinton's turn to speak?  Was she interupting Sen. Sanders?  She was cheating got called on it and now people are bitching because they say Sen. Sanders didn't use the right tone in telling Sec. Clinton to hush and let him finish rather than just allowing her to violate the rules by interupting him.  She cheated elicted the reaction she wanted and people say she won.  

She cheated... to win.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, cheat (break the explicit rules of the debate) to win?

Scott, 

Attorney to attorney, you simply cannot be serious. You simply cannot possibly have such a narrow and rigid view of the rules of public debate to believe anything other than that the occasional interruption is just part of the game, can you? You can't tell me that you've never made an objection just to disrupt the flow of a witness' testimony, or interrupted another attorney during oral argument to correct an egregious misstatement of fact or of the record even though it wasn't your time to speak? I mean, come on. 

[mormont]

4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Depending on whether you mean the only vote specifically on bailing out the auto industry, which he supported, or another vote that was not sold as bailing out the auto industry, which he did not?

Really not remotely hard to see which vote is more relevant to characterizing his position on bailing out the auto industry. 

Maybe. But I think it's clear enough which vote Clinton had in mind when she spoke. And I can see the argument that the vote that actually did support the auto industry because it passed is more salient than the one that didn't because it didn't. Positions mean more when they lead to results, after all.

4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

No, he didn't. The release of TARP funds was not, at the time, being pushed as a bailout of the auto industry by one of Obama's chief advisers and advocates for release of the funds (additionally TARP funds had already been dispersed to help the auto industry). If it had been, then you could make a claim about weighing Sanders' opposition to TARP vs support for the auto bailout. It was not.

I thought it was well understood at the time that some portion of the funds (specifically the second half of the TARP cash) would be used for the auto industry bailout? Albeit no figure had been mentioned.

 

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, cheat (break the explicit rules of the debate) to win?

Did you think politics wasn't a bloodsport or something?

Debates are all about soundbites and optics and baiscally how you present yourself. And Clinton outmaneuvered him in this tiny part.

Like, I guess it's cheating but that framing doesn't really make much sense to me in this context. It's sorta like the way the moderators let the candidates talk over their time constantly. They are shit at their jobs really.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FB,

Was it Sec. Clinton's turn to speak?  Was she interupting Sen. Sanders?  She was cheating got called on it and now people are bitching because they say Sen. Sanders didn't use the right tone in telling Sec. Clinton to hush and let him finish rather than just allowing her to violate the rules by interupting him.  She cheated elicted the reaction she wanted and people say she won.  

She cheated... to win.

I am physically pained by this response. Physically pained. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

I can honestly say that I haven't done that.  Of course I'd been in three jury trials in 15 years.  This isn't trial work.  This is a debate with set rules.  She broke the rules, I suspect for deliberate effect.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Maybe. But I think it's clear enough which vote Clinton had in mind when she spoke. And I can see the argument that the vote that actually did support the auto industry because it passed is more salient than the one that didn't because it didn't. Positions mean more when they lead to results, after all.

I thought it was well understood at the time that some portion of the funds (specifically the second half of the TARP cash) would be used for the auto industry bailout? Albeit no figure had been mentioned.

 

No, there were some Senators who said it would, but it was not entirely clear, and certainly did not dominate the debate. This is referenced in both the Nation article I linked and the Politifact article Fez linked.

From the Nation:



One dimension of the debate is whether the senators even knew for sure at the time the money would go directly to the auto industry. Larry Summers, Obama’s economic adviser, said in a letter to Congress ahead of the 2009 vote that the auto companies would  “only receive additional assistance in the context of a comprehensive restructuring designed to achieve long-term viability.”

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Nestor,

I can honestly say that I haven't done that.  Of course I'd been in three jury trials in 15 years.  This isn't trial work.  This is a debate with set rules.  She broke the rules, I suspect for deliberate effect.

Trials have set rules as well - Rules of Court, Rules of Evidence, etc. and so on - many, many more rules than those laid out for a stupid primary debate. 

This is politics. These are DNC sponsored debates. Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows the truth - much like "Whose Line Is It Anyway" - the rules are made up and the points don't matter. You don't become president by coloring within the lines and they don't score debates like a boxing match. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

Yes.  And if you are constantly interupted it makes it very difficult to make any point at all, hence, rules about who may speak when.

[Fragile Bird]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FB,

Was it Sec. Clinton's turn to speak?  Was she interupting Sen. Sanders?  She was cheating got called on it and now people are bitching because they say Sen. Sanders didn't use the right tone in telling Sec. Clinton to hush and let him finish rather than just allowing her to violate the rules by interupting him.  She cheated elicted the reaction she wanted and people say she won.  

She cheated... to win.

First of all, I was talking about my overall impression of Sanders, not a specific incident.  But certainly when I've watched the debates, on both sides, many candidates have interrupted each other and the way you respond to those interruptions is certainly fair game for observations about those candidates.  Clinton didn't bully her way into the conversation, not in the bits that I've seen repeated over and over on CNN, she opened her mouth and said "well" or something, didn't she?  And Sanders jumped down her throat.  I've been cut down by men just like that in my life and I don't care for it. 

Come to think of it, I have a friend who does exactly that at Sunday dinner, and it raises the hackles at the back of my neck.  I shall have to start calling him Bernie from now on.

[Kalbear]

Nestor,

Yes.  And if you are constantly interupted it makes it very difficult to make any point at all, hence, rules about who may speak when.

And it's definitely the case that no president ever gets interrupted or flustered, right? I'm sure that how someone deals with adversity and pressure situations is probably not that important to running the United states.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

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.

Uh, you know Clinton didn't write that article, right? She's not threatening anybody. You are projecting something fierce here.

Also your whole "They'll vote for whoever represents their ideas the best, and if Clinton cannot do that, then it's entirely on her." statement is exactly the attitude the article is rightfully pointing out as full of shit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

And it's definitely the case that no president ever gets interrupted or flustered, right? I'm sure that how someone deals with adversity and pressure situations is probably not that important to running the United states.

Kalbear,

Why is it proper for Sec. Clinton to interrupt Sen. Sanders?

[Kalbear]

Why is it proper for you to not answer the question, scot?

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Nestor,

Yes.  And if you are constantly interupted it makes it very difficult to make any point at all, hence, rules about who may speak when.

But there is no "win by forfeit" in a debate.  If someone is interrupting you, they are being rude, and you need to make that clear to the audience, that is how you "win" that situation, and ensure that they do not continue to do so.  I remember in the Bush-Gore debates when Gore at some point wanted to interject, and Bush just ceded the floor, and that was seen as "very presidential" (we actually discussed it in poly sci class).  Or you can keep talking in a courteous manner, and make their lack of manners speak for itself. 

Regardless, whatever you do, it should be to command to stage, which is kind of the most important thing about debates - being able to present yourself and your ideas an a way that people would like the next President to do.  If your response to someone interrupting you comes across as rude, that just isn't Presidential, and that looks bad.

In the debates I've seen (I didn't see the Michigan one), both candidates were interrupting and talking over one another at times.  But I thought Clinton was better at not coming across like a jerk when she did it.