[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[Kelinfort]

Bernie has done well in other small, very white, and red states. Figured he'd do well here.

Red states like Vermont¹, white states like Hawaii², and small states like Michigan and Washington³, as opposed to blue states like Alabama, Arkansas⁴, and the rest of the former Confederacy, largely non-white states like Iowa⁵, and large states like, oh, Connecticut...

The race is more or less decided at this point, you should be trying to mend fences rather than trying to continue to rile up and alienate Sanders supporters by pushing shitty narratives.

1. Second most Democratic state by Cook PVI. Also see this post.
2. Least white state in United States, also most Democratic state by Cook PVI.
3. 10th and 13th largest population. I'll cheerfully run another regression at the end of the day, but I can already tell you state size isn't going to mean a thing.
4. 5th and 6th most Republican states in the US by Cook PVI, rest of former confederacy all in the +R territory.
5. 7th whitest state in the country and one of Clinton's best caucus performances.

Not that it matters much. The most radical ones would demand that we burn our white skin, give up our male privilege, and eat shit; the others have already made up their minds on who they'll vote for, Clinton or otherwise.

Sarcasm aside, perhaps more people will come to support Clinton, but I doubt it'll be a high percentage. A lot of these people, unlike in 2008, aren't registered Democrats.

[Eol Sha]

They are undemocratic, though. Whether or not you think they'll matter doesn't matter since they were created for the purpose of the party to subvert the will of it's own voters should they choose a candidate they believe to be unelectable and weak.

You do realize that that is exactly what happened to the Democrats in 1972 with McGovern? And it wasn't because McGovern showed the most democratic strength in newly implemented primaries in that cycle, it was because McGovern was one of the main authors of the report that had rewritten the entire delegate process and gamed his own system.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that anti-democratic structures should be purged (you're also against term limits, I presume?) and that people have the right to make horrible decisions. But if superdelegates are literally not resolving contests that are actually in open question, then abolishing them is solution in search of a problem.

Yes, I realize that. It's brought every single fucking time anyone even bothers to open their mouths about the superdelegates or Bernie Sanders being the nominee or really anything involving anyone in the primary. So, yeah, I realize it.

In general, I am against term limits. Although, I can understand the argument for having them.

[Penguin Union Nation]

Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is proof that no matter how much better Five Guys is, more people will eat at McDonald's.

[Arumdaum]

Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is proof that no matter how much better Five Guys is, more people will eat at McDonald's.

[Kelinfort]

Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is proof that no matter how much better Five Guys is, more people will eat at McDonald's.

Who's In-n-Out then?

[New Rogernomics]

Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is proof that no matter how much better Five Guys is, more people will eat at McDonald's.

Nah, more like proof that we can't have good things in America, and have to settle for second, third or 50th best. If we don't like it, all we can do is move to Canada or out of North America altogether.

[Myrensis]

Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is proof that no matter how much better Five Guys is, more people will eat at McDonald's.

Who's In-n-Out then?

No, Who's on first. What's In-n-Out.

[Kelinfort]

Who's In-n-Out then?

No, Who's on first. What's In-n-Out.

Are you serious

[Maurepas]

Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is proof that no matter how much better Five Guys is, more people will eat at McDonald's.

Who's In-n-Out then?

Elizabeth Warren. *nods*

[The Romulan Republic]

Red states like Vermont¹, white states like Hawaii², and small states like Michigan and Washington³, as opposed to blue states like Alabama, Arkansas⁴, and the rest of the former Confederacy, largely non-white states like Iowa⁵, and large states like, oh, Connecticut...

The race is more or less decided at this point, you should be trying to mend fences rather than trying to continue to rile up and alienate Sanders supporters by pushing shitty narratives.

1. Second most Democratic state by Cook PVI. Also see this post.
2. Least white state in United States, also most Democratic state by Cook PVI.
3. 10th and 13th largest population. I'll cheerfully run another regression at the end of the day, but I can already tell you state size isn't going to mean a thing.
4. 5th and 6th most Republican states in the US by Cook PVI, rest of former confederacy all in the +R territory.
5. 7th whitest state in the country and one of Clinton's best caucus performances.

Not that it matters much. The most radical ones would demand that we burn our white skin, give up our male privilege, and eat shit; the others have already made up their minds on who they'll vote for, Clinton or otherwise.

Sarcasm aside, perhaps more people will come to support Clinton, but I doubt it'll be a high percentage. A lot of these people, unlike in 2008, aren't registered Democrats.

This is a foolish argument.

If you haven't written off winning over a significant number of Sanders supporters (out of an apparent need to preserve the false "Sanders isn't a real Democrat, only independents really like him" narrative), you are likely conceding the general election, practically speaking.

I'm not sure I understand your race/gender-based ranting, though. Is it directed at Sanders supporters or Clinton supporters? In either case, I don't think its helpful.

[Ngelmish]

You do realize that that is exactly what happened to the Democrats in 1972 with McGovern? And it wasn't because McGovern showed the most democratic strength in newly implemented primaries in that cycle, it was because McGovern was one of the main authors of the report that had rewritten the entire delegate process and gamed his own system.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that anti-democratic structures should be purged (you're also against term limits, I presume?) and that people have the right to make horrible decisions. But if superdelegates are literally not resolving contests that are actually in open question, then abolishing them is solution in search of a problem.

Yes, I realize that. It's brought every single fucking time anyone even bothers to open their mouths about the superdelegates or Bernie Sanders being the nominee or really anything involving anyone in the primary. So, yeah, I realize it.

In general, I am against term limits. Although, I can understand the argument for having them.

I apologize if you feel that I phrased that condescendingly, but usually what I see being said is something along the lines of "George McGovern got blown out of the water!" and the argument ends there. That's crucial, of course, but the really important point is that not only did he get blown out of the water, but really, by the rules that he wrote he shouldn't have been able to be in that position.

So I have some sympathy for the Democratic party feeling like there's a risk of being taken for a ride by a hostile take-over that honors the letter, but not the spirit of the rules. I also believe that when it comes to cobbling together coalitions, even if we're dealing in pluralities, so long as it's clear what the most sizable plurality is, we don't have an anti-democratic problem that needs to be fixed. Does that mean that individual voters don't get the absolute and unconditional say in the selection process? Yes. But history also indicates that the undemocratic superdelegates will respect the will of the majority, or the biggest plurality, regardless.

Of course, if you're a democracy activist and want to open up the democratic process as much as possible, you'd have every reason to reject that position, and that's respectable too.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is proof that no matter how much better Five Guys is, more people will eat at McDonald's.

I must reiterate how much it pisses me off that people are calling Hillary Clinton the winner when their are still about a dozen contests left, no one has achieved a majority of delegates, and Sanders is still in the race.

Likely winner, yes, but treating it as a done deal is a) factually false, and b) incredibly disrespectful to both the process and the Sanders campaign (by acting as though they're no longer in the race).

[The Romulan Republic]

I am deeply disturbed by the Bernie or Bust/Bernie or Trump/anti-Clinton mentality from some (obviously not all) Sanders supporters. They would hand the most powerful nation on Earth to a fascist, throw away everything Sanders has campaigned for, and call it principle.

At the same time, a lot of people in the Clinton camp, including Clinton herself at times, are not helping. Despite the smug, dismissive assurances that the race is over, they continue to hurl vitriol, stereotypes, dishonesty, and abuse at Sanders and his supporters, and we see some even discounting the possibility and/or need of winning over large numbers of Sanders supporters. Rather than trying to unite the Left, they are apparently so caught up in animosity, spite, and arrogance that the approach increasingly seems to be to dismiss Sanders and his supporters as an irrelevant fringe, give them nothing, and then blame them anyway if Clinton loses. Which she likely will if her campaign essentially writes off Sanders supporters.

You need us, and we need you. Conceding that you can't win Sanders supporters over amounts, in all likelihood, to conceding the general election, or at the very least, a very narrow win that will still validate fascism, violence, and white supremacism as parts of the political mainstream of America.

Are you trying to hand the country to the Republicans?

Really, people should vote for Clinton regardless if that's what it takes to stop the Republicans. But at the same time, realistically, if you want a lot of peoples' support, you can't dismiss them and their concerns. And you need Sander's supporters' backing.

[Penguin Union Nation]

Are you trying to hand the country to the Republicans?

Soon there'll only be Republicans in this race. One just insists on calling herself a Democrat.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you trying to hand the country to the Republicans?

Soon there'll only be Republicans in this race. One just insists on calling herself a Democrat.

I am so tired of the "Both sides are the same" line. Its a tired, trite oversimplification from people who see the world in two dimensions and lump everyone they disagree with into the same camp, think cynicism is cool, or just want an excuse to oversimplify a complex situation or justify their own apathy.

No, Clinton is not like the current Republicans. At worst, I'd say that she's like a moderate Republican ten or twenty years ago.

But really, Hillary Clinton is pretty much whatever she feels its convenient for her to be. Which means that she's a sleaze bag, but also that she can't go as far to the Right as the Republicans because she's running as a Democrat.

As far as I can tell, you're just trying to rationalize handing the country over to neo-Nazis, throwing away everything the Left has struggled to achieve, and calling it a principled act.

[Ngelmish]

Are you trying to hand the country to the Republicans?

Soon there'll only be Republicans in this race. One just insists on calling herself a Democrat.

No.

Go back and study Clinton's record again, especially the areas on which she has been consistently to Sanders' left. Study Sanders' record again too, while you're at it. You'll notice that he's been inconsistent and opportunistic on certain policies too.

[The Romulan Republic]

Soon there'll only be Republicans in this race. One just insists on calling herself a Democrat.

No.

Go back and study Clinton's record again, especially the areas on which she has been consistently to Sanders' left.

Oh, do tell.

I doubt their is a single issue where you can honestly say that she has been consistently to Sanders' left.

Study Sanders' record again too, while you're at it. You'll notice that he's been inconsistent and opportunistic on certain policies too.

Such as?

No one's perfect, of course, and people do change their positions sometimes, weather for convenience or simply because (as shocking as this may be), they may honestly reevaluate them based on new information/circumstances. I'd be very worried about someone who never changed their mind, because at some point that stops being principle and becomes Bush-style "stay the course".

Bus Sanders' central message and principles haven't really changed in decades from what I've seen.

[Penguin Union Nation]

Don't be delusional. Hillary's utter lack of self-propelled liberalism and her millions in corporate lucre has utterly disqualified her from being considered a liberal. Maybe she'll accidentally take a progressive stance on something if enough people push her on it, but she's little more than a weather vane, blowing where the wind goes rather than where things ought to be.

It's baffling, frankly, that anybody who could consider themselves on the left could prefer her uninspired liberal credentials to a consistent champion of nearly every one of those values for decades.

[Kelinfort]

Are you trying to hand the country to the Republicans?

Soon there'll only be Republicans in this race. One just insists on calling herself a Democrat.

Ok Ralph

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't be delusional.

Spoken like a true fanatic.

Hold on, let me rephrase that, since you probably consider "true fanatic" a compliment.

Disagreeing with you does not make one delusional.

Hillary's utter lack of self-propelled liberalism and her millions in corporate lucre has utterly disqualified her from being considered a liberal. Maybe she'll accidentally take a progressive stance on something if enough people push her on it, but she's little more than a weather vane, blowing where the wind goes rather than where things ought to be.

She will likely take progressive positions if she is convinced that it is in her self-interest to do so.

I don't claim that she's an honest candidate, or a good candidate. Just better than the alternatives if she wins the nomination.

I am so tired of seeing both Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters happily aiding the Republicans with stubborn, needlessly nasty and petty infighting. By all rights, we should sweep this election in a landslide. And now it is looking increasingly likely that many of you will throw that, and the the prosperity, liberty, and security of this country and the world, away.

For the love of God, why?

[Eol Sha]

Yes, I realize that. It's brought every single fucking time anyone even bothers to open their mouths about the superdelegates or Bernie Sanders being the nominee or really anything involving anyone in the primary. So, yeah, I realize it.

In general, I am against term limits. Although, I can understand the argument for having them.

I apologize if you feel that I phrased that condescendingly, but usually what I see being said is something along the lines of "George McGovern got blown out of the water!" and the argument ends there. That's crucial, of course, but the really important point is that not only did he get blown out of the water, but really, by the rules that he wrote he shouldn't have been able to be in that position.

So I have some sympathy for the Democratic party feeling like there's a risk of being taken for a ride by a hostile take-over that honors the letter, but not the spirit of the rules. I also believe that when it comes to cobbling together coalitions, even if we're dealing in pluralities, so long as it's clear what the most sizable plurality is, we don't have an anti-democratic problem that needs to be fixed. Does that mean that individual voters don't get the absolute and unconditional say in the selection process? Yes. But history also indicates that the undemocratic superdelegates will respect the will of the majority, or the biggest plurality, regardless.

Of course, if you're a democracy activist and want to open up the democratic process as much as possible, you'd have every reason to reject that position, and that's respectable too.

No need to apologize. You didn't do anything wrong. Just brought up an inconvenient fact.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is proof that no matter how much better Five Guys is, more people will eat at McDonald's.

Who's In-n-Out then?

Joe Biden obviously. He's got the old man charisma of Bernie Sanders, He's got the Experience of Hillary Clinton, and He's as consistent of more consistent than Barack Obama on the issues.

[Washington Resistance Army]

For the love of God, why?

Some people really don't like Clinton

[The Romulan Republic]

It's baffling, frankly, that anybody who could consider themselves on the left could prefer her uninspired liberal credentials to a consistent champion of nearly every one of those values for decades.

Since you edited this, I'll reply to this as well.

Since you are replying to me, I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that I prefer Clinton to Sanders. I do not. I voted for Sanders, and have frequently defended him in this thread.

I simply prefer her to the collection of lunatics, assholes, and bigots running with an R after their name.

For the love of God, why?

Some people really don't like Clinton

Neither do I, but that doesn't mean I won't take her over the current Republican options (and let's be realistic, their is no viable independent/third party alternative right now).

Edited to fix an error with the quotes.

[Ngelmish]

No.

Go back and study Clinton's record again, especially the areas on which she has been consistently to Sanders' left.

Oh, do tell.

I doubt their is a single issue where you can honestly say that she has been consistently to Sanders' left.

Study Sanders' record again too, while you're at it. You'll notice that he's been inconsistent and opportunistic on certain policies too.

Such as?

No one's perfect, of course, and people do change their positions sometimes, weather for convenience or simply because (as shocking as this may be), they may honestly reevaluate them based on new information/circumstances. I'd be very worried about someone who never changed their mind, because at some point that stops being principle and becomes Bush-style "stay the course".

Bus Sanders' central message and principles haven't really changed in decades from what I've seen.

Clinton has been to Sanders' left on guns and immigration pretty consistently. We can debate about where her positions on gun control in the 2008 primary disqualify the consistency, although I'd say that even in that case she comes out to Sanders' left. Her record on transgender rights as SoS is arguably to Sanders' left too, in the sense that, while he's long said the right things, he hasn't been in a position to implement policy on them.

As for opportunism and inconsistency, the aforementioned guns and immigration issues are ones on which Sanders has indeed been inconsistent. The amount of political capital that he, as a legislator (to be clear, let me underline, I am not talking about his student activism), has put down on social issues has been negligible, although he's quick to claim credit for having said, at one time or another, generally the right thing. I would call that opportunistic. In fact, if you examine his legislative career, he's put down precious little political capital on any issues that aren't one of his hobbyhorses: Generally financial reform and welfare are his go-tos.

Now we can debate, the power structure of the legislature being what it is, whether or not that's a meaningful criticism.