[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Conserative Morality]

There were so many deductions and nuances that it ended up with virtually everyone paying like 45% instead.

I mean think about it, how could the US function as a market economy if the rich were actually taxed 95%.

Because tax brackets only tax income above said bracket?

And an effective rate of 45% is much better than what we have now. The nominal rate doesn't even approach that.

[Khadgar]

Bernie is delusional. Well, at the very least his campaign manager is.

Here’s the truth: we don’t have to win New York on Tuesday, but we have to pick up a lot of delegates"

No man, you HAVE to win. If you don't your boy is sunk. Absolutely must win.

Here's Bernie on why he's not bothering to support down ticket Democrats.

For Democrats to do well, not only at the highest level but in the Senate races and in the House races, we need a large voter turnout, I think there's very little doubt that a Bernie Sanders winning the nomination and being the Democratic candidate will in fact create the kind of excitement and large voter turnout not only to win the White House but to regain control of the Senate, to win governors' chairs all over the country."

He's still counting on that revolution (which has yet to show up). Guess that conveniently leaves him all the money.

[Camicon]

Bernie is delusional. Well, at the very least his campaign manager is.

Here’s the truth: we don’t have to win New York on Tuesday, but we have to pick up a lot of delegates"

No man, you HAVE to win. If you don't your boy is sunk. Absolutely must win.

Here's Bernie on why he's not bothering to support down ticket Democrats.

For Democrats to do well, not only at the highest level but in the Senate races and in the House races, we need a large voter turnout, I think there's very little doubt that a Bernie Sanders winning the nomination and being the Democratic candidate will in fact create the kind of excitement and large voter turnout not only to win the White House but to regain control of the Senate, to win governors' chairs all over the country."

He's still counting on that revolution (which has yet to show up). Guess that conveniently leaves him all the money.

Mathematically, Weaver is right; practically, yeah, Sanders needs a win. A virtual tie at the absolute very least, a la Iowa and Missouri. These certainly aren't the hairs that Weaver should be splitting right now.

[Khadgar]

Bernie is delusional. Well, at the very least his campaign manager is.



No man, you HAVE to win. If you don't your boy is sunk. Absolutely must win.

Here's Bernie on why he's not bothering to support down ticket Democrats.


He's still counting on that revolution (which has yet to show up). Guess that conveniently leaves him all the money.

Mathematically, Weaver is right; practically, yeah, Sanders needs a win. A virtual tie at the absolute very least, a la Iowa and Missouri. These certainly aren't the hairs that Weaver should be splitting right now.

Assuming Clinton gets a 10 point win, that means going forward Bernie would have to win every contest 70-30 to get the nomination. At least according to NBCnews. I find the odds of Bernie locking down 70% of all remaining delegates rather long. That's not mentioning the April 26th races where Bernie is also trailing quite badly.

[Camicon]

Mathematically, Weaver is right; practically, yeah, Sanders needs a win. A virtual tie at the absolute very least, a la Iowa and Missouri. These certainly aren't the hairs that Weaver should be splitting right now.

Assuming Clinton gets a 10 point win, that means going forward Bernie would have to win every contest 70-30 to get the nomination. At least according to NBCnews. I find the odds of Bernie locking down 70% of all remaining delegates rather long. That's not mentioning the April 26th races where Bernie is also trailing quite badly.

Right. If Sanders doesn't at least tie Clinton in New York he can still mathematically win, but practically speaking the race is over at that point.

[Geilinor]

Sanders advisor Tad Devine is claiming that Russ Feingold should thank Bernie if he gets back into the Senate. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-russ-feingold-race-222085
That's ridiculous. What did Sanders ever do for him in 2010? He wouldn't help his fellow progressive. On top of that, Devine says, "we're trying to build a party here". Newflash: The party already exists - you just joined it and now you think that the success of the entire party depends on you.

[Camicon]

Sanders advisor Tad Devine is claiming that Russ Feingold should thank Bernie if he gets back into the Senate. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-russ-feingold-race-222085
That's ridiculous. What did Sanders ever do for him in 2010? He wouldn't help his fellow progressive.

>higher voter turnout, particularly of young people, helps Democrats win House and Senate seats
>Sanders is bringing lots of young people to the Democrats, and will likely increase voter turnout
>individuals like Feingold, going up against Republican incumbents, should be appreciative of this

That was a perfectly reasonable article, with perfectly reasonable comments, and your bullshit spin is a disservice.

[Ngelmish]

Bernie is delusional. Well, at the very least his campaign manager is.

Here’s the truth: we don’t have to win New York on Tuesday, but we have to pick up a lot of delegates"

No man, you HAVE to win. If you don't your boy is sunk. Absolutely must win.

Here's Bernie on why he's not bothering to support down ticket Democrats.

For Democrats to do well, not only at the highest level but in the Senate races and in the House races, we need a large voter turnout, I think there's very little doubt that a Bernie Sanders winning the nomination and being the Democratic candidate will in fact create the kind of excitement and large voter turnout not only to win the White House but to regain control of the Senate, to win governors' chairs all over the country."

He's still counting on that revolution (which has yet to show up). Guess that conveniently leaves him all the money.

For as much flak as I've casually thrown Bernie's way, I will say that actually from what I can tell, Jeff Weaver deserves a lion's share of the blame for the increasingly tendentious tone of the campaign.

I understand spin and that it's part of a campaign manager's job, but Weaver's consistently hostile tone is at least as cringe-worthy and John Kasich claiming that his ability to win only the primary in his home state proves that he's going to win the race.

[Napkiraly]

Sanders advisor Tad Devine is claiming that Russ Feingold should thank Bernie if he gets back into the Senate. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-russ-feingold-race-222085
That's ridiculous. What did Sanders ever do for him in 2010? He wouldn't help his fellow progressive. On top of that, Devine says, "we're trying to build a party here". Newflash: The party already exists - you just joined it and now you think that the success of the entire party depends on you.

He's saying if he wins, it'll probably be do to the increase in younger voters that Bernie has inspired and registered because of him. And he's not wrong.

I'm not the biggest fan of Sanders, but man your post is one hell of a spin job.

[Geilinor]

Sanders advisor Tad Devine is claiming that Russ Feingold should thank Bernie if he gets back into the Senate. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-russ-feingold-race-222085
That's ridiculous. What did Sanders ever do for him in 2010? He wouldn't help his fellow progressive.

>higher voter turnout, particularly of young people, helps Democrats win House and Senate seats
>Sanders is bringing lots of young people to the Democrats, and will likely increase voter turnout
>individuals like Feingold, going up against Republican incumbents, should be appreciative of this

That was a perfectly reasonable article, with perfectly reasonable comments, and your bullshit spin is a disservice.

I don't think it was so reasonable. It expresses an arrogant attitude that Bernie is responsible for anything good that happens to Democrats regardless of what Sanders has being saying for a long time. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181

You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”

[Camicon]

>higher voter turnout, particularly of young people, helps Democrats win House and Senate seats
>Sanders is bringing lots of young people to the Democrats, and will likely increase voter turnout
>individuals like Feingold, going up against Republican incumbents, should be appreciative of this

That was a perfectly reasonable article, with perfectly reasonable comments, and your bullshit spin is a disservice.

I don't think it was so reasonable. It expresses an arrogant attitude that Bernie is responsible for anything good that happens to Democrats regardless of what Sanders has being saying for a long time. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181

You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”

I hope you're holding Clinton to the same standard. Are you still berating her for that incredibly racist "super predators" comment?

[Geilinor]

I don't think it was so reasonable. It expresses an arrogant attitude that Bernie is responsible for anything good that happens to Democrats regardless of what Sanders has being saying for a long time. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181

I hope you're holding Clinton to the same standard. Are you still berating her for that incredibly racist "super predators" comment?

She used the term "super predators" in reference to drug gangs but she has said recently that she could have used a better word.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/very-brief-history-super-predators
And the fact is that there were teenagers like that because of lead poisoning. We don't have the problem now because lead has been taken out of more things.

[Camicon]

I hope you're holding Clinton to the same standard. Are you still berating her for that incredibly racist "super predators" comment?

She used the term "super predators" in reference to drug gangs but she has said recently that she could have used a better word.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/very-brief-history-super-predators

Jesus Christ. The intellectual dishonesty here.

My point being that if you're going to give Clinton a pass on things she said two decades ago, then you should be giving Sanders a pass on things he said three decades ago.

[Ngelmish]

She used the term "super predators" in reference to drug gangs but she has said recently that she could have used a better word.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/very-brief-history-super-predators

Jesus Christ. The intellectual dishonesty here.

My point being that if you're going to give Clinton a pass on things she said two decades ago, then you should be giving Sanders a pass on things he said three decades ago.

Sanders' campaign is premised on being the only candidate who's serious about taking on a hopelessly corrupt political and financial establishment though. He's careful not to specifically indict the Democratic Party while campaigning for it's nomination, but the subtext is barely subliminal when he talks about corrupt systems. He hasn't meaningfully disavowed those remarks in anyway.

Clinton has apologized for the crime bill in general and that sentence in particular several times and says she wants reverse the mass incarceration problem specifically. These are not really analogous situations.

[Camicon]

Jesus Christ. The intellectual dishonesty here.

My point being that if you're going to give Clinton a pass on things she said two decades ago, then you should be giving Sanders a pass on things he said three decades ago.

Sanders' campaign is premised on being the only candidate who's serious about taking on a hopelessly corrupt political and financial establishment though. He's careful not to specifically indict the Democratic Party while campaigning for it's nomination, but the subtext is barely subliminal when he talks about corrupt systems. He hasn't meaningfully disavowed those remarks in anyway.

Clinton has apologized for the crime bill in general and that sentence in particular several times and says she wants reverse the mass incarceration problem specifically. These are not really analogous situations.

The crime bill shattered countless lives, and Clinton was specifically asked to address what she said multiple times. Sanders has campaigned as an Independent, against Democrats and Republicans, for years, and has never been asked to address comments he made during those past campaigns.

You're right. They aren't perfectly analogous situations. But they are not so different that they don't deserve the same treatment. Both were comments made decades earlier, and both are at odds with what the candidates are saying now. If you're going to take what one candidate says now, over what they said in the past, then you should be doing so for both.

[Geilinor]

Sanders' campaign is premised on being the only candidate who's serious about taking on a hopelessly corrupt political and financial establishment though. He's careful not to specifically indict the Democratic Party while campaigning for it's nomination, but the subtext is barely subliminal when he talks about corrupt systems. He hasn't meaningfully disavowed those remarks in anyway.

Clinton has apologized for the crime bill in general and that sentence in particular several times and says she wants reverse the mass incarceration problem specifically. These are not really analogous situations.

The crime bill shattered countless lives, and Clinton was specifically asked to address what she said multiple times. Sanders has campaigned as an Independent, against Democrats and Republicans, for years, and has never been asked to address comments he made during those past campaigns.

You're right. They aren't perfectly analogous situations. But they are not so different that they don't deserve the same treatment. Both were comments made decades earlier, and both are at odds with what the candidates are saying now. If you're going to take what one candidate says now, over what they said in the past, then you should be doing so for both.

Clinton has addressed her comments on "super predators", while Sanders has not been asked about some of his past comments.

[Ngelmish]

Sanders' campaign is premised on being the only candidate who's serious about taking on a hopelessly corrupt political and financial establishment though. He's careful not to specifically indict the Democratic Party while campaigning for it's nomination, but the subtext is barely subliminal when he talks about corrupt systems. He hasn't meaningfully disavowed those remarks in anyway.

Clinton has apologized for the crime bill in general and that sentence in particular several times and says she wants reverse the mass incarceration problem specifically. These are not really analogous situations.

The crime bill shattered countless lives, and Clinton was specifically asked to address what she said multiple times. Sanders has campaigned as an Independent, against Democrats and Republicans, for years, and has never been asked to address comments he made during those past campaigns.

You're right. They aren't perfectly analogous situations. But they are not so different that they don't deserve the same treatment. Both were comments made decades earlier, and both are at odds with what the candidates are saying now. If you're going to take what one candidate says now, over what they said in the past, then you should be doing so for both.

I'm willing to do so for both, and I think that a healthy dose of historical context, when talking about old quotations, is important.

As I said above though, Hillary Clinton, and almost the entire Democratic party including her husband, has publicly admitted that either the crime bill was a mistake or that at the least, it had unintended consequences that they are now apologizing for. We can parse their statements and motivations and honesty, of course, but the party has publicly swung away from all of that. Sanders hasn't disavowed his repeatedly stated contempt for the institution that he's now asking to be made figure-head of, and the way he's campaigned and language he's used leaves little doubt that he would be insincere if he did so.

[Zurkerx]

Bernie is delusional. Well, at the very least his campaign manager is.

Here’s the truth: we don’t have to win New York on Tuesday, but we have to pick up a lot of delegates"

No man, you HAVE to win. If you don't your boy is sunk. Absolutely must win.

Here's Bernie on why he's not bothering to support down ticket Democrats.

For Democrats to do well, not only at the highest level but in the Senate races and in the House races, we need a large voter turnout, I think there's very little doubt that a Bernie Sanders winning the nomination and being the Democratic candidate will in fact create the kind of excitement and large voter turnout not only to win the White House but to regain control of the Senate, to win governors' chairs all over the country."

He's still counting on that revolution (which has yet to show up). Guess that conveniently leaves him all the money.

I will be honest, I have seen some Sanders supporters say he can outright win the nomination, which is becoming more impossible everyday.

Anyway, looks like we'll be enjoying Trump's nickname for Hillary now: Crooked Hillary.

To be fair, his nicknaming does work well; in the Republican Primary. I don't see it as effective in the general election since she is not the kind of person that really takes that crap or for the matter of fact, ignore it.

[AiliailiA]

Sanders advisor Tad Devine is claiming that Russ Feingold should thank Bernie if he gets back into the Senate. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-russ-feingold-race-222085
That's ridiculous. What did Sanders ever do for him in 2010? He wouldn't help his fellow progressive. On top of that, Devine says, "we're trying to build a party here". Newflash: The party already exists - you just joined it and now you think that the success of the entire party depends on you.

If Sanders isn't the nominee, not all of those 'young people' who registered will actually vote. Some of them will though, so Devine has a point.

Another way of looking at it though, is that polling for the last few YEARS has shown Feingold ahead of Johnson for the Wisconsin senate (his lead went DOWN into single figures in March) so Devine is trying to claim credit for something his candidate probably had no part in.

[Myrensis]

The crime bill shattered countless lives, and Clinton was specifically asked to address what she said multiple times. Sanders has campaigned as an Independent, against Democrats and Republicans, for years, and has never been asked to address comments he made during those past campaigns.

You're right. They aren't perfectly analogous situations. But they are not so different that they don't deserve the same treatment. Both were comments made decades earlier, and both are at odds with what the candidates are saying now. If you're going to take what one candidate says now, over what they said in the past, then you should be doing so for both.

I'm willing to do so for both, and I think that a healthy dose of historical context, when talking about old quotations, is important.

As I said above though, Hillary Clinton, and almost the entire Democratic party including her husband, has publicly admitted that either the crime bill was a mistake or that at the least, it had unintended consequences that they are now apologizing for. We can parse their statements and motivations and honesty, of course, but the party has publicly swung away from all of that. Sanders hasn't disavowed his repeatedly stated contempt for the institution that he's now asking to be made figure-head of, and the way he's campaigned and language he's used leaves little doubt that he would be insincere if he did so.

It's kind of silly really. Bernie has made no bones about his disgust for everybody who is part of 'the system', Republican and Democrat. He has a sweetheart deal with the Democrats regarding his position in Congress, but beyond that he only grudgingly picked up the Democrat nametag because he couldn't get anywhere as an Independent, and his campaign, and total lack of cooperation or fundraising or attempts to help anyone else in the Party (until very recently finally giving in to the criticism and doing some minimal noisemaking about a whole 3 down-ballot candidates who support him) has made it clear that he really just views working with "Democrats" as an unpleasant necessity for getting himself into the White House.

And his supporters know it, it's why the only defense they can come up with is "Well Bernie said he wants lots of people to come vote for him, and that will probably incidentally benefit the Democrats! So that proves he's totally not cynically using the Democratic party as an expendable political tool and that's why Democrat voters and especially the Super delegates should totally throw their support behind him!"

[Corrian]

You really don't come into this thread except to whine about Sanders, do you?

[Conserative Morality]

You really don't come into this thread except to whine about Sanders, do you?

Everyone needs a hobby.

[Tahar Joblis]

Assuming Clinton gets a 10 point win, that means going forward Bernie would have to win every contest 70-30 to get the nomination. At least according to NBCnews. I find the odds of Bernie locking down 70% of all remaining delegates rather long. That's not mentioning the April 26th races where Bernie is also trailing quite badly.

Currently, estimated pledged delegates stand 1305-1099 (and Sanders may yet pick up some more pledged delegates in the caucus contes, given the way things have gone in Nevada and Colorado). There are 1647 delegates remaining to assign.

If Clinton wins New York by 10 points, that's a 136-111 split in pledged delegates, leaving us at 1441-1210 with 1400 left. If Sanders wins 816 of the remaining delegates, which is 58%, not anywhere near 70%, he has 2026 pledged delegates and a majority of pledged delegates.

[The disunited states]

You really don't come into this thread except to whine about Sanders, do you?

Everyone needs a hobby.

We all need alternative viewpoints though.

[Geilinor]

Sanders advisor Tad Devine is claiming that Russ Feingold should thank Bernie if he gets back into the Senate. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-russ-feingold-race-222085
That's ridiculous. What did Sanders ever do for him in 2010? He wouldn't help his fellow progressive. On top of that, Devine says, "we're trying to build a party here". Newflash: The party already exists - you just joined it and now you think that the success of the entire party depends on you.

If Sanders isn't the nominee, not all of those 'young people' who registered will actually vote. Some of them will though, so Devine has a point.

Another way of looking at it though, is that polling for the last few YEARS has shown Feingold ahead of Johnson for the Wisconsin senate (his lead went DOWN into single figures in March) so Devine is trying to claim credit for something his candidate probably had no part in.

Even if progressives don't vote for Hillary, there are lots of down-ballot candidates they could support like Feingold.