Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Don't like popular vote idea. Trick would be to maximize votes in 10 biggest states and screw everybody else. I live in the...I don't know 14th or 15th biggest state so we'd get some love but the rest of New England would be a total afterthought. As well as about 30 other states.

Not at all. States wouldn't have any meaning in the presidential election anymore.

As for whether cities would get more attention than rural areas, if more people live in them then they should.

But since candidates are always looking for an edge, if one party completely abandoned a segment of the population the other would pounce on it as a market inefficiency. Rural areas might actually wind up being the swing segment, with liberal diverse cities and conservative white flight suburbs cancelling each other out.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Now can you admit the guy's a screw up for blowing off Dem leaning states in a Presidential election.

If he wins the nomination and then loses the election because he lost the purple states, then he screwed up. Otherwise, you're hiding under Hillary's skirt and throwing brickbats again. Obama was swept in the purple states in the 2008 primaries. He lost FL, OH, PA, NH and NV.

He won them all in November.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Too late, I'm responding anyway!

Sanders isn't being racist. He's trying to cover up for his campaign's incompetence and doing it in a way that's making him look bad.

So, Sanders claims he didn't compete in Southern states because they're more conservative and not going to vote Dem for President. This is a bad assumption on several levels. First it assumes the Dem voters in these states are conservatives, and since they're mostly African Americans participating in the Dem primaries down there, he's just labeled all the AA's as conservadems. They might be somewhat surprised to know that.

Next, the last time I checked, Obama won Florida twice, Virginia twice, and North Carolina once. Its inexcusable the Sanders campaign didn't make a play in any of these places. That's dumb, but not due to any racial animosity.

Finally, the goal of the contest is to amass delegates. Guam and Puerto Rico also don't help elect the President but if Sanders wins their delegates I don't think he's going to refuse them.

Sanders is a person who has a lot of trouble admitting his campaign did something stupid. Its his fault, and his fault alone, that he didn't compete in delegate rich areas under rules that have been in place since 1988. His CYA attempt looks bad but again that's all it is, not a desire to insult black voters.

Not necessarily stupid. Just doubling down on the nomination. When you chances are say 25% of winning the first step, you play 100% for today.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Just doubling down on the nomination. When you chances are say 25% of winning the first step, you play 100% for today.

a.k.a. You can't win the general if you don't win the nomination. And Hillary's doing the same thing by spurning liberals now. She has her swim lane and she's carefully sticking to it. She knows that after she wraps up the nomination she'll have months to get us on board and what other choice do we have? She's playing out her hand, and so is Bernie. Bernie's is harder because he doesn't have the DNC blocking for him and Hillary's centrists might just decide to go all PUMA poutrage on him if he beats the Downton Dowager.

Their targets for expansion do not overlap. Hillary will target corporate cons in the general who will happily abandon Christ if they can keep the Caymans (and would anybody be surprised if the Clintons showed up in Panama Papers II, Evasion Boogaloo?). Bernie will target populists who will let the government out of the bathtub as long as it drowns the fat cats.

It's almost too bad they can't run together, since they could roll up both the GOP's flanks.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

I want to ask objective people (sorry, Rover) what they think of this argument. I also heard Markos make it on Make It Plain yesterday, and it really ticked me off, and kinda depressed me because I typically respect him.

I'll state it in brief: Bernie says Hillary's southern state delegate leads distort the Democratic primary race. Because those votes come primarily from black and Hispanic voters, Bernie is being racist.

I call B.S. To me, Bernie's argument was simply that building up delegates in states that aren't important to a November win is the distortion. If you think the Deep South is on the table, then we've already won the election and are looking to expand it into a landslide. From the POV of the presidential election, Bernie's point is exactly right. Math is not racist.

Kos did go on to talk about the downticket effects and that if Hillary brings out more southern Democrats perhaps we pick up more House seats. OK, I can see that.

But the whole idea that it's racist to state the obvious is IMO not just ridiculous but cynical. It's playing the race card where it's entirely unwarranted. I understand why one would do that if they were a partisan looking for an angle -- politics is not an Oxford debate. But if people are using that argument sincerely, and think they're actually making a point with validity outside of the sharp elbows of an election... I just don't see it.

So, convince me otherwise.

I think Bernie's argument is perfectly reasonable, and I think the Clinton response playing the race card is equally reasonable.

There is this illusion, offered up by the two main political parties, and accepted without analysis by the media, that this entire process leading up to the two major party conventions is somehow part of the American election process. No it's not.

The parties nominate their candidates, and in November we'll vote on them. Everything else leading up to the conventions is a charade put on by the parties to persuade the general public that they have some say in the process. They only have as much say as the party leaders ultimately approve. These primary and caucus proceedings are the equivalent of an "advisory jury." They don't really get to decide the case. They just give some guidance to the person who does decide the case which way to go.

The Republican convention may turn out to be a real eye opener for the public in that it will be revealed that their "votes" (and of course, they really aren't votes) leading up to the convention are worth about the same as a Vote for Hobey. Meanwhile, Sanders and Clinton can and should do whatever they can to persuade those people with the "real votes" (party delegates) that they are the horse that should be backed.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Not necessarily stupid. Just doubling down on the nomination. When you chances are say 25% of winning the first step, you play 100% for today.

This would make sense if 1) he was a late entry into the race, or 2) he was broke and had to conserve resources. He announced his candidacy last April IIRC and as many have inartfully pointed out in other places, if the guy on the one hand is bragging about all the money he's been raising, why not use it to expand the playing field? Again, the point here is to accumulate delegates.

Even Kep couldn't justify not contesting Florida, and I don't even think Sanders' wife likes Bernie as much as Kep likes him.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Looking at it pragmatically, I think we can start with the military over-expenditures and fixing the corporate tax loopholes.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

"Unfortunately, I remain one of the poorer members of the United States Senate", LOL. Nice wordsmithing from a guy with a $200k salary and below average charitable donations.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/00fb...dd/sanders-gave-4-percent-income-charity-2014

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

For a senator, $200K doesn't really go as far for them as it would for you or me. They have to maintain two houses, one in their home district and another in DC. And there are some other expenses that go along with this that you and I would never expect. I wish I could remember the person's name, but there was a guy discussing the salary of senators and congressmen, and it just doesn't go that far when you consider that many of the younger members of Congress have families back home. More or less, it's like a divorced man/woman living in one of the most expensive areas of the country, and having to pay for it on both ends.

The caveat is that most of these people are rich before getting elected to their seats, so we need not shed those crocodile tears for them, but if you're coming into that job from a position like you or I, then you're in for a rude awakening.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Blah blah blah

If been made 100k in Vermont he'd be fine, and 100k in DC he'd be fine.

Some expenses? BS!!! Not like he needs to set aside $$$ for an IRA

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

And if that job doesn't support your lifestyle GO GET ANOTHER JOB

 

[LynahFan]

Lynah,

Who is the "perfect candidate"? I bring this up because its always easy to image a Republican or Democratic Jesus but in history there's not a lot of those people to be found (Reagan for Goopers and Kennedy for Dems are the historical models I suppose).

In other news, this needs to be the final Dem debate. Nothing new accept a lot more swiping at each other. CNN and other news outlets are desperate for ratings and want to turn everything into a brawl. Having said that it had no value. They were even arguing about things they agree on.

I'm not saying there is a perfect candidate. I'm just saying that there's no need to make a pragmatic choice this year. This should be he year for Ds to resolutely stand by the candidate they think will gorven he most like they would like to see the country governed. So, if that's Hillary for you, well, there's a place in this world for sociopaths, too...

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

For a senator, $200K doesn't really go as far for them as it would for you or me. They have to maintain two houses, one in their home district and another in DC.

I get that, and I get that DC is expensive. However on $200K per annum, the housing issue should hardly be a dilemma of "eat" or "sleep under a roof".

And there are some other expenses that go along with this that you and I would never expect. I wish I could remember the person's name, but there was a guy discussing the salary of senators and congressmen, and it just doesn't go that far when you consider that many of the younger members of Congress have families back home. More or less, it's like a divorced man/woman living in one of the most expensive areas of the country, and having to pay for it on both ends.

I'd be curious to see an itemized list that goes beyond the obvious travel expenses.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

The unapproved Boston paper has an article on Bernie closing the F gap on HRC.

However, this quote from the story highlights the differences in the campaign

Both candidates were breaking from the New York campaign trail yesterday, but for very different reasons.

Clinton flew to California to headline a pair of fundraisers with Hollywood superstar George Clooney. One event last night, hosted by venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar, required a couple to raise or donate $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund to land two seats at the head table with Clinton, Clooney and his wife, Amal, according to Politico.

Another fundraiser set for tonight will take place at the Clooney mansion with tickets to dine at their table running $33,400 per person.

The Sanders campaign pounced on the sky-high ticket prices, releasing an ad to run in California over the weekend with supporters urging voters to donate $27 to bolster his campaign.

Bernie ought to have a fundraiser at Denny's. $25 will get you a seat in the booth with Bern.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

For a senator, $200K doesn't really go as far for them as it would for you or me. They have to maintain two houses, one in their home district and another in DC. And there are some other expenses that go along with this that you and I would never expect. I wish I could remember the person's name, but there was a guy discussing the salary of senators and congressmen, and it just doesn't go that far when you consider that many of the younger members of Congress have families back home. More or less, it's like a divorced man/woman living in one of the most expensive areas of the country, and having to pay for it on both ends.

The caveat is that most of these people are rich before getting elected to their seats, so we need not shed those crocodile tears for them, but if you're coming into that job from a position like you or I, then you're in for a rude awakening.

This is so absurd that even Kep isn't trying to make this point. Senators get free healthcare. Their campaigns can pay for their travel. They don't have to save a dime for retirement. His federal salary might not even be subject to state taxes although I'm not 100% sure about that.

In short, charitable giving ain't exactly "Feeling the Bern" if the one tax return Sanders has released is any indication.

 

[joecct]

This is so absurd that even Kep isn't trying to make this point. Senators get free healthcare. Their campaigns can pay for their travel. They don't have to save a dime for retirement. His federal salary might not even be subject to state taxes although I'm not 100% sure about that.

In short, charitable giving ain't exactly "Feeling the Bern" if the one tax return Sanders has released is any indication.

I think they have to pay for healthcare now. As part of ACA, Congress and their staffs are supposed to get their HC like the general public.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

I think they have to pay for healthcare now. As part of ACA, Congress and their staffs are supposed to get their HC like the general public.

did they not exempt themselves from obamacare?

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

I think they have to pay for healthcare now. As part of ACA, Congress and their staffs are supposed to get their HC like the general public.

Yes that may be correct. So the poor slob only got free healthcare for the first 24 years he was in Congress.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Hillary's speeches at Goldman Sachs were exactly what everyone expected.

Clintons gonna Clinton.

 

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

This is so absurd that even Kep isn't trying to make this point. Senators get free healthcare. Their campaigns can pay for their travel. They don't have to save a dime for retirement. His federal salary might not even be subject to state taxes although I'm not 100% sure about that.

In short, charitable giving ain't exactly "Feeling the Bern" if the one tax return Sanders has released is any indication.

Not to mention, a lot of the younger guys, and maybe some of the older ones too, share living quarters. It's just like a big frat house.