[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[AiliailiA]

Strange, 538 lays some of the blame on precisely what I said, which makes it odd that you say it flatly didn't happen. There were several factors but the one I specifically mentioned was certainly one of them.



So yeah, Michigan's history made the pollsters adjust their numbers incorrectly. Don't go hoping for that kind of thing anywhere else. Michigan has been taken on as some kind of talisman for Bernie supporters "The polls underestimate us!". It's nonsense.

Yeah, 538 is wrong here. The only nonsense is to suggest that Michigan was ever Sanders territory. It was a huge upset, and trying to scramble for excuses to downplay it is pathetic.

ALSO

DID YOU SEE THAT I PREDICTED CLINTON TO WIN. BY A LOT. YOU INSUFFERABLE SANDERS-SUPPORTER GENERALIZING HACK

Feel the Bern?

GO TO HILL!

[Myrensis]

The allegation is that this has become a blatant con job, and the large amounts of money being sent to the Clinton Presidential campaign by HFV far exceeds the amount sent to other democrats.

Yeah..so, even if we generously take the word of 2 Sanders websites and his campaign manager ranting on MSNBC as absolutely true and assume that HIllary has kept 2/3rds of the donations...that would mean she still has, in fact, raised millions of dollars for down ballot candidates, compared to the 0 dollars and counting they've gotten from Bernie.

So, for clarity, the Sanders campaign is arguing that their principled refusal to provide any help of any kind is better than Hillary selfishly helping less than she could be.

Wow, that is a truly compelling argument, I'm sure the super delegates will see the light now and come flooding Sanders way any minute.



Yep.



Any second now.



*cough*.

[Khadgar]

The allegation is that this has become a blatant con job, and the large amounts of money being sent to the Clinton Presidential campaign by HFV far exceeds the amount sent to other democrats.

Yeah..so, even if we generously take the word of 2 Sanders websites and his campaign manager ranting on MSNBC as absolutely true and assume that HIllary has kept 2/3rds of the donations...that would mean she still has, in fact, raised millions of dollars for down ballot candidates, compared to the 0 dollars and counting they've gotten from Bernie.

So, for clarity, the Sanders campaign is arguing that their principled refusal to provide any help of any kind is better than Hillary selfishly helping less than she could be.

Wow, that is a truly compelling argument, I'm sure the super delegates will see the light now and come flooding Sanders way any minute.



Yep.



Any second now.



*cough*.

Don't worry, Bernie says the inevitable wave of new voters (who have yet to show up), will push Democrats to a clear majority in both houses. Bernie NEEDS that money dammit!

[Camicon]

The allegation is that this has become a blatant con job, and the large amounts of money being sent to the Clinton Presidential campaign by HFV far exceeds the amount sent to other democrats.

Yeah..so, even if we generously take the word of 2 Sanders websites and his campaign manager ranting on MSNBC as absolutely true and assume that HIllary has kept 2/3rds of the donations...that would mean she still has, in fact, raised millions of dollars for down ballot candidates, compared to the 0 dollars and counting they've gotten from Bernie.

So, for clarity, the Sanders campaign is arguing that their principled refusal to provide any help of any kind is better than Hillary selfishly helping less than she could be.

Wow, that is a truly compelling argument, I'm sure the super delegates will see the light now and come flooding Sanders way any minute.



Yep.



Any second now.



*cough*.

Wow. You sure do love corruption, don't you?

[Myrensis]

Yeah..so, even if we generously take the word of 2 Sanders websites and his campaign manager ranting on MSNBC as absolutely true and assume that HIllary has kept 2/3rds of the donations...that would mean she still has, in fact, raised millions of dollars for down ballot candidates, compared to the 0 dollars and counting they've gotten from Bernie.

So, for clarity, the Sanders campaign is arguing that their principled refusal to provide any help of any kind is better than Hillary selfishly helping less than she could be.

Wow, that is a truly compelling argument, I'm sure the super delegates will see the light now and come flooding Sanders way any minute.



Yep.



Any second now.



*cough*.

Wow. You sure do love corruption, don't you?

Well obviously, I'm a Hillary supporter, and am reminded every day by Bernie supporters how his failure to secure absolute overwhelmingly victory in every single primary and caucus is proof of the massive Clinton corruption, fraud and conspiracy everywhere.

[Khadgar]

Wow. You sure do love corruption, don't you?

Well obviously, I'm a Hillary supporter, and am reminded every day by Bernie supporters how his failure to secure absolute overwhelmingly victory in every single primary and caucus is proof of the massive Clinton corruption, fraud and conspiracy everywhere.

Her massive lead by every metric is only further proof that the DNC and the mainstream media are involved in a massive anti-Bernie conspiracy funded by billions of wall street dollars.

Politifact looked at Bernie's repeated claim that he wins when voter turn out is higher. It's Mostly False. I think they're being polite. Bottom line:

The average turnout rate for a state won by Clinton was 44 percent, while the average state won by Sanders had a turnout rate of 31 percent.

[54e]

Well obviously, I'm a Hillary supporter, and am reminded every day by Bernie supporters how his failure to secure absolute overwhelmingly victory in every single primary and caucus is proof of the massive Clinton corruption, fraud and conspiracy everywhere.

Her massive lead by every metric is only further proof that the DNC and the mainstream media are involved in a massive anti-Bernie conspiracy funded by billions of wall street dollars.

It must be very traumatic to support such an underwhelming and disappointing candidate. Unfortunately, Sanders supporters are not monolithic, and all you and the Clinton campaign are doing now is alienating them.

[Khadgar]

Her massive lead by every metric is only further proof that the DNC and the mainstream media are involved in a massive anti-Bernie conspiracy funded by billions of wall street dollars.

It must be very traumatic to support such an underwhelming and disappointing candidate. Unfortunately, Sanders supporters are not monolithic, and all you and the Clinton campaign are doing now is alienating them.

Facts are unforgiving ain't they?

[Camicon]

Wow. You sure do love corruption, don't you?

Well obviously, I'm a Hillary supporter, and am reminded every day by Bernie supporters how his failure to secure absolute overwhelmingly victory in every single primary and caucus is proof of the massive Clinton corruption, fraud and conspiracy everywhere.

There have been some credible accusations made that Clinton is circumventing what little campaign finance laws there are in place, in order to take even more money from her private donors than she already was, and your response is "Bernie is selfish by not taking corporate money, pretending to give it all to downballot candidates, and then effectively laundering half of it back into his (nonexistent) SuperPACs."

Either you like corruption, or you're as cognitively dissonant as an evolutionary biologist that thinks the Earth is six-thousand years old.

[Khadgar]

Hillary has gotten more negative media attention than any other candidate. Kasich got the least negative coverage, followed closely by Bernie and Cruz (wtf?). Hillary has also received the fewest positive stories.

The grand anti-Bernie media conspiracy is really shoddy.

[Senkaku]

Hillary has gotten more negative media attention than any other candidate. Kasich got the least negative coverage, followed closely by Bernie and Cruz (wtf?). Hillary has also received the fewest positive stories.

The grand anti-Bernie media conspiracy is really shoddy.

The media is just ignoring Bernie!!!111!111!one

Also, I'm guessing Kasich got the least negative coverage because he's just gotten the least coverage.

[Geilinor]

Hillary has gotten more negative media attention than any other candidate. Kasich got the least negative coverage, followed closely by Bernie and Cruz (wtf?). Hillary has also received the fewest positive stories.

The grand anti-Bernie media conspiracy is really shoddy.

Lol. Bernie got the second best coverage and somehow there's a conspiracy.

[Geilinor]

Well obviously, I'm a Hillary supporter, and am reminded every day by Bernie supporters how his failure to secure absolute overwhelmingly victory in every single primary and caucus is proof of the massive Clinton corruption, fraud and conspiracy everywhere.

There have been some credible accusations made that Clinton is circumventing what little campaign finance laws there are in place, in order to take even more money from her private donors than she already was, and your response is "Bernie is selfish by not taking corporate money, pretending to give it all to downballot candidates, and then effectively laundering half of it back into his (nonexistent) SuperPACs."

Either you like corruption, or you're as cognitively dissonant as an evolutionary biologist that thinks the Earth is six-thousand years old.

Much of that money does go to downballot candidates, if there is money left over. I'm going to need evidence that she's taking this money and laundering it.

[Khadgar]

There have been some credible accusations made that Clinton is circumventing what little campaign finance laws there are in place, in order to take even more money from her private donors than she already was, and your response is "Bernie is selfish by not taking corporate money, pretending to give it all to downballot candidates, and then effectively laundering half of it back into his (nonexistent) SuperPACs."

Either you like corruption, or you're as cognitively dissonant as an evolutionary biologist that thinks the Earth is six-thousand years old.

Much of that money does go to downballot candidates, if there is money left over. I'm going to need evidence that she's taking this money and laundering it.

Oh come on man, she's a Clinton. WHITEWATER!

[Geilinor]

Much of that money does go to downballot candidates, if there is money left over. I'm going to need evidence that she's taking this money and laundering it.

Oh come on man, she's a Clinton. WHITEWATER!

The kinds of conspiracy theories I see about the Clintons are mindboggling.

[Khadgar]

Oh come on man, she's a Clinton. WHITEWATER!

The kinds of conspiracy theories I see about the Clintons are mindboggling.

There's no evidence of course, they had everyone who knew murdered. And everyone who knew about them, and so on.

[Alien Space Bats]

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.

This. THIS. God, SO much this.

I lived through the 90's (and the 80's, and the 70's, and the 60's...). I remember the conversation the Nation had about rising crime rates back then, Everybody knew there was something qualitatively different in the behavior of some of the criminals we were seeing show up in the crime blotter back then; we just didn't know (and couldn't agree) on what was causing it. Far right-wing idiots were spinning racist arguments about innate black criminality, while left-wingers were trying to attribute everything to poverty and urban decay and religious conservatives were decrying the breakdown of the family, so-called "latch-key" children, and the loss of "traditional values". It was out of this melange of speculation that the term "superpredator" arose. It wasn't a racist term per se, because everyone had a different theory about what was causing the problem; it was SEEN as racist, though, because SOME people imagined it to be a symptom of the "animal" nature of African-Americans.

But what NONE of us knew at the time — because the science had not yet been done — is that both violent crime and teenage pregnancy rates correlate with environmental lead. We knew that an increased propensity towards both violence and promiscuity were symptoms of lead poisoning in individuals, because THOSE studies HAD been done. What we lacked were broad studies of whole populations; once those broader studies were performed, the pattern suddenly became clear.

To me, urban lead poisoning is Big Oil's version of the tobacco industry's decades-long product liability problem. The introduction of tetraethyl lead into gasoline as a "no knock" additive, combined with the growing amount of urban bus, truck, and automobile traffic from the 30's and 40's onward created the crime crisis of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. When we built the interstate highway system in the 50's, creating ring roads around municipal areas (most of which were routed through poorer neighborhoods by design [because eminent domain had to be used to acquire the land needed to build these bypasses, and poor homes and lots were cheaper to buy out and bulldoze than more expensive ones]), we expanded the problem dramatically. Plotting crime rates on a block by block basis against traffic patterns in the era before unleaded gasoline is extraordinarily revealing; the correlation is so bloody obvious as to become sickening, and with the medical science being as firm as it is, correlation very quickly substantiates causality.

The studies show an 18-20 year lag between widespread lead poisoning and crime rates. Crime in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's correlates with lead poisoning from bus, truck, and auto exhaust in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. Then unleaded gasoline comes into play, and rates start to fall from the mid-to-late 90's onward. There's still a huge amount of environmental lead out there, of course: But this also gives us a clear path forward. We can clean up those neighborhoods with lead dust, remove lead pipes, and take other steps to reduce infant and childhood lead poisoning. The resultant further drop in violent crime and teen pregnancy can only benefit society further.

tl&dr: Hillary shouldn't have to apologize for using the term "superpredator", because there really WERE "superpredators in the 90's, created by the lead poisoning of young urban Americans that peaked in the early-to-mid 70's. What she SHOULD do is use the crime problem of the 90's to push for infrastructure repair and lead remediation today.

ADDENDUM: Oh, and we should sue the shit out of the oil industry, because we knew there was lead everywhere even as far back as the 60's (cf. Clair Cameron Patterson). But Big Oil repeated lied to the public and to Congress about the deleterious effect of lead additives in gasoline in almost the same exact way as Big Tobacco lied about the link between their products and cancer, delaying the implementation of regulations against for a full decade.

Supporting Articles: Patterson and Kehoe, and the great lead debate, The Latest "Cosmos" Explains How Corporations Fund Science Denial, Is This the Greatest Public Health Achievement in the 20th Century?, The Secret History of Lead (behind The Nation's paywall)

[Geilinor]

According to analysis by Politifact, the claim that Sanders wins when turnout is high is mostly false.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-voter-turnout-politifact-222138?cmpid=sf#ixzz46Hq7rzGC

[Geilinor]

But this also gives us a clear path forward. We can clean up those neighborhoods with lead dust, remove lead pipes, and take other steps to reduce infant and childhood lead poisoning. The resultant further drop in violent crime and teen pregnancy can only benefit society further.

tl&dr: Hillary shouldn't have to apologize for using the term "superpredator", because there really WERE "superpredators in the 90's, created by the lead poisoning of young urban Americans that peaked in the early-to-mid 70's. What she SHOULD do is use the crime problem of the 90's to push for infrastructure repair and lead remediation today.

I hope that the Flint water crisis doesn't lead to these problems in Flint in 15-20 years.

[Myrensis]

Well obviously, I'm a Hillary supporter, and am reminded every day by Bernie supporters how his failure to secure absolute overwhelmingly victory in every single primary and caucus is proof of the massive Clinton corruption, fraud and conspiracy everywhere.

There have been some credible accusations made that Clinton is circumventing what little campaign finance laws there are in place, in order to take even more money from her private donors than she already was,

There have been accusations made yes. We'll add them to the 30 years worth that somehow nobody can ever actually prove.

and your response is "Bernie is selfish by not taking corporate money, pretending to give it all to downballot candidates, and then effectively laundering half of it back into his (nonexistent) SuperPACs."

A. The dividing up of funds has never been a secret, nobody ever claimed that Hillary was giving all the money to down ballots candidates.

B. Is there some rule I don't know about that says down ballot candidates are only allowed to have money that was taken from corporations, never any funding that came from small donors? Because last I checked Sanders isn't exactly struggling on the fundraising front.

So again we're back to pretending that his refusal to lift a finger for anyone else in this election is actually proof of his virtue and nobility.

Either you like corruption, or you're as cognitively dissonant as an evolutionary biologist that thinks the Earth is six-thousand years old.

Or I'm not invested in seeing conspiracy and fraud in every shadow because I'm so desperate for the Progressive Messiah to lead us out of the darkness and into the Promised Land of Rainbows and Unicorns for all.

[Camicon]

There have been some credible accusations made that Clinton is circumventing what little campaign finance laws there are in place, in order to take even more money from her private donors than she already was, and your response is "Bernie is selfish by not taking corporate money, pretending to give it all to downballot candidates, and then effectively laundering half of it back into his (nonexistent) SuperPACs."

Either you like corruption, or you're as cognitively dissonant as an evolutionary biologist that thinks the Earth is six-thousand years old.

Much of that money does go to downballot candidates, if there is money left over. I'm going to need evidence that she's taking this money and laundering it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/h ... ion-222044

I've underlined the most relevant parts.

Hillary Clinton in the first three months of the year raised $33 million into a joint account her campaign formed with Democratic Party committees, according to a report filed Friday night with the Federal Election Commission.

The report shows that the joint account, called the Hillary Victory Fund, spent heavily trying to develop a small donor base for Clinton’s presidential campaign, but also took advantage of its unique structure to raise nearly $5 million from just 14 mega-rich donors, including entertainment titans Barry Diller, James Cameron and Haim Saban.

The fund comprises Clinton’s presidential campaign committee, as well as the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. As a result, it can accept checks as large as $358,000 per person — a total determined by the maximum donation to each of its component committees ($5,400 to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 to the DNC and $10,000 to each of the state parties).

The idea is that the committee will help the state parties raise money for their general election efforts, an area where Clinton’s allies argue that her insurgent rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Bernie Sanders has done little. Sanders has a joint fundraising committee, as well, but it has been relatively inactive.

Yet, during the first three months of the year, the $2 million transferred by the Hillary Victory Fund to various state party committees paled in comparison to the $9.5 million it transferred to Clinton’s campaign committee or the $3.5 million it transferred to the DNC.

And the Hillary Victory Fund also spent $6.7 million on online ads that mostly looked like Clinton campaign ads, as well as $5.5 million on direct marketing. Both expenses seem intended at least in part to help Clinton build a small donor base, an area in which Sanders has far outpaced her.

FEC reports filed Friday showed that Clinton’s campaign and joint fundraising committee received a total of $1.8 million in checks bundled by lobbyists, including Tony Podesta (the brother of her campaign chairman John Podesta), former Sen. Mary Landrieu and energy lobbyist Ankit Nitin Desai.

Also during the first three months of the year, a pair of super PACs founded by Clinton ally David Brock that are supporting her campaign, American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record, combined to raise $4.7 million.

New York financier George Soros was the biggest donor to the PACs, donating $1 million to American Bridge. That brings his total known 2016 giving to Democratic groups to $20 million, and puts him on pace to exceed the $27 million he spent during the 2004 elections – widely considered the biggest election spending spree by a Democratic mega-donor in modern times.

Correct the Record received $500,000 from Henry Laufer, an executive at the investment management company started by billionaire mega-donor Jim Simons, $500,000 from Boston philanthropist Barbara Lee and $250,000 from medical device heiress Pat Stryker.

Correct the Record, which works with the Clinton campaign on messaging strategy, paid $126,000 to the West Wing Writers speech-writing firm, and donated $100,000 to a PAC called the Franklin Forum, which has conducted on-camera training for Clinton surrogates on behalf of Correct the Record.

Correct the Record and American Bridge combined to pay a whopping $535,000 in first quarter fundraising commissions to the firm of Mary Pat Bonner, a fundraiser who works closely with Brock and maintains deep ties to some of the wealthiest donors in Democratic politics.

[Khadgar]

And.. what part of that is corrupt? The money is being spent on Hillary, the DNC, and other office holders. Is that not how it was advertised? I mean it sounds like that was how it was advertised.

[Camicon]

There have been some credible accusations made that Clinton is circumventing what little campaign finance laws there are in place, in order to take even more money from her private donors than she already was,

There have been accusations made yes. We'll add them to the 30 years worth that somehow nobody can ever actually prove.

Politico has already followed the money trail. It's already been proven.

and your response is "Bernie is selfish by not taking corporate money, pretending to give it all to downballot candidates, and then effectively laundering half of it back into his (nonexistent) SuperPACs."

A. The dividing up of funds has never been a secret, nobody ever claimed that Hillary was giving all the money to down ballots candidates.

B. Is there some rule I don't know about that says down ballot candidates are only allowed to have money that was taken from corporations, never any funding that came from small donors? Because last I checked Sanders isn't exactly struggling on the fundraising front.

So again we're back to pretending that his refusal to lift a finger for anyone else in this election is actually proof of his virtue and nobility.

The HVF is a fundraising committee for Clinton's campaign, the DNC, and state Democratic parties. The money that actually goes into the committee goes overwhelmingly to Clinton. A lot of the money that doesn't directly go to her is used to campaign and run ads on her behalf. One would think that, given the HVF is supposed to be helping fund thirty-five separate entities, that no one in particular should be receiving anywhere near a majority.

And I never said that down ballot candidates are only allowed to get corporate money, I said that the money going into the HVF is corporate money. Most of it isn't even going to down ballot candidates, which is the crux of the issue.

Either you like corruption, or you're as cognitively dissonant as an evolutionary biologist that thinks the Earth is six-thousand years old.

Or I'm not invested in seeing conspiracy and fraud in every shadow because I'm so desperate for the Progressive Messiah to lead us out of the darkness and into the Promised Land of Rainbows and Unicorns for all.

If you think that's where I'm coming from then I would suggest that you step back, take a deep breath, and stop making wildly incorrect assumptions about me.

And.. what part of that is corrupt? The money is being spent on Hillary, the DNC, and other office holders. Is that not how it was advertised? I mean it sounds like that was how it was advertised.

It allows individuals donors who have already hit their contribution limit to give Clinton another $358,000. That's not counting donations written in the name of a spouse or child, but coming from the same bank accounts.

[Khadgar]

Guy writes innocuous article about Bernie, gets doxxed by Bernie fans.

'Cause the media is out to get Bernie you know.

[Kelinfort]

Guy writes innocuous article about Bernie, gets doxxed by Bernie fans.

'Cause the media is out to get Bernie you know.

#ClintonGate

"It's about ethics in news journalism"