2015-2016 Democratic Primary Season - Bernie Math

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

People are pushing Bernie because he comes across as a person of integrity versus Clinton who is seen as a machine politician.

You know who was a person of integrity? Jimmy Carter. Yeah.

Anyways, I'm reading through the methodology for CNN's poll on 6/30 and I find it incredibly fascinating. One of the things that sticks out, is that it seems Sanders's base is rich white liberals.

Sanders's support among whites is 19%, but only 9% among non-whites. His support among people making over $50k is 19%, but only 11% for those making under $50. His support among liberals is 27%, but only 7% among moderates. And interestingly (probably based on his lack of non-white support) his support among suburban voters is 17%, but 11% for urban.

[JPhillips]

I'd bet a lot of that has to do with name recognition. If you live in Chicago or Dallas or pick your city, and you aren't really engaged in politics, have you even heard of Sanders?

[ISiddiqui]

I'd actually wager, to be honest, it has to do with that liberal/moderate thing. African-Americans tend to be more conservative (esp on social issues) than most white liberals. Same applies for those making under $50k vs. those making over $50k.

[JPhillips]

I'm sure it's a combination, but I'm struck every election by how few people actually pay attention to what's going on. Elections are decided by people that choose their favorite beer buddy 24 hours before going to the polls.

[ISiddiqui]

Which, of course, ends up being a factor of money in the end (who can plaster ads) .

[Grover]

I was in Portland on Monday night for Bernie's rally. I've never seen the civic center so full and I have never in my life seen so much enthusiasm for one person.

[bob]

This blows my mind.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politi...ter/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down.

[Dutch]

I didn't think any Democratics would behave like that. Strange coalition, that.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by bob

This blows my mind.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politi...ter/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down.

As well they should have shouted him down, TBH.

While on the surface it seems confusing, when you look at what's actually going on, it makes perfect sense.

You see, when you have a particular issue like this, where you're trying to call attention to a group that is disadvantaged in some way, when you say something like, "But what about X?!", it repositions the conversation and negates the original argument and focus. It also makes the What about X person look like a pedantic asshole who is patronizing the people discussing the primary issue.

In this case, it's taking the conversation about police brutality towards African-Americans, which is a specifically focused issue, and diffusing it towards a general all lives matter. While all lives matter is a true statement, by uttering it, you've now moved attention from this very spotlighted issue to a generic conversation about police brutality, which ignores the multiplicity of unique factors that are involved in African-American and police relations that lead to a disproportionate amount of law enforcement brutality visited upon blacks.

Similarly, a couple weeks ago, I was in a Facebook conversation discussing a political cartoon where Hillary Clinton was criticized for her looks. The original poster, who was in my high school graduating class and is now a tenure track sociology professor at Notre Dame, pointed out that while disagreeing with Hillary on the issues was certainly fair, attacking her appearance was a gendered thing - one that very rarely happened to male politicians, but often does to female politicians.

In swaggers a guy who says, "I think this should be extended to ALL people being criticized for their physical appearance. Women should not get a special pass on this."

Real patronizing and MRA style, right? I pointed out that American society is constructed around the notion that the primary currency of a woman is her appearance.

He blusters his way against that, gets shot down by pretty much everyone, and the original poster remarks, "In principle I think everyone is on board with a universal protection. But that obscures the documentable fact that women are subjected to job irrelevant physical commentary at much greater rates than men. It's not to say men are never subject to it, or that when they are that they shouldn't be defended. They should. But there is not a systematic problem on the same scale as there are for women."

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I wanted to try (I just woke up, so not very coherent yet to clarify why the protesters did what they did.

[NobodyHere]

Males are never attacked for their appearance? Nobody has ever said anything about Chris Christie's weight or Donald Trump's hair?

[nol]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Males are never attacked for their appearance? Nobody has ever said anything about Chris Christie's weight or Donald Trump's hair?

And what's the deal with Relay for Life? Don't they know that people die from other diseases besides cancer?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Males are never attacked for their appearance? Nobody has ever said anything about Chris Christie's weight or Donald Trump's hair?

Very rarely != never

And the OP did acknowledge that Donald Trump's combover was essentially equivalent. As for Christie's weight, which also came up, OP pointed out that they were talking mainly about job irrelevant criticisms of appearance. And with Christie's weight, possible health issues that could impact Presidential duties come into play, so that at least has some job relevancy merits (to what degree is certainly debatable, of course).

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Izulde

In this case, it's taking the conversation about police brutality towards African-Americans, which is a specifically focused issue, and diffusing it towards a general all lives matter. While all lives matter is a true statement, by uttering it, you've now moved attention from this very spotlighted issue to a generic conversation about police brutality, which ignores the multiplicity of unique factors that are involved in African-American and police relations that lead to a disproportionate amount of law enforcement brutality visited upon blacks.

But isn't a generic conversation about police brutality absolutely the conversation we should be having in the sphere of politics? It is the conversation that can get the most accomplished and save the most lives.

For example, let us say over night with a wave of the wand we can get all police forces to be extra cognoscente of how they treat African-Americans. Do we honestly think the police officers with the worst attitudes and with the worst training still wouldn't find a way to screw up and get people they can't relate to killed? It will just be Hispanics, or young people who aren't black who don't act a certain way, or anyone that they deem as trouble from the get-go. So how about instead of an African-American-centric campaign we train police officers to see that their instinct should be that all lives in front of them matter, regardless if that person is African-American, Hispanic, a disrespectful youth, etc.

This was never a race only problem, although African-Americans absolutely get the worst of it. To address the situation by only focusing on "black lives matter," or by not letting those in power focus on police brutality as a whole, keeps real permanent change from happening. That way of thinking essentially says that other minorities and groups treated poorly by police officers don't matter.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bob

This blows my mind.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politi...ter/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down.

One of those articles you read and wonder if it's The Onion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Izulde

While on the surface it seems confusing, when you look at what's actually going on, it makes perfect sense.

You see, when you have a particular issue like this, where you're trying to call attention to a group that is disadvantaged in some way, when you say something like, "But what about X?!", it repositions the conversation and negates the original argument and focus. It also makes the What about X person look like a pedantic asshole who is patronizing the people discussing the primary issue.

Exactly. It's kind of like the #NotAllMen stuff.

And the other interesting thing about that forum is that it wasn't just O'Malley who got shouted down. Bernie Sanders got savaged as well:

Activists disrupt forum featuring candidates O’Malley, Sanders - The Washington Post

It seems that both Sanders and O'Malley aren't all that experienced in dealing with minority issues (Sanders in particular seems to speak of those issues solely in terms of income inequality). That'll kill both of them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

This was never a race only problem

Nope.

It's a behavior problem ... and worse than useless idiots like these protestors aren't willing to accept that, taking responsibility for the behaviors that create the pseudo-"brutality' problem is the last thing you'll see from that sort of vermin. And it's the last thing you'll see from them regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

The problem isn't race and it isn't police.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Exactly. It's kind of like the #NotAllMen stuff.

Completely disagree. In my mind it is nothing like that. NotAllMen was a response to yesallwomen, so it was the privileged class in the discussion making the conversation about them. The real equivalent would be saying "Police Lives Matter."

Saying all lives matter is to say that there is an unprivileged class that goes beyond African-Americans, that it should be our goal to protect lives of all our citizens first and foremost. Is it OK when a unarmed Latino is gunned down in Texas? When an elderly Indian man is nearly killed in a white Alabama suburb for taking a walk? When any kid's life is put at risk by a police officer because of their attire or because they are too young and stupid to know how to properly act?

Just because it is an issue that affects African-Americans dis-proportionally, doesn't mean it is only an African-American issue, and it shouldn't be treated as such politically. Even shrewd Hillary got "caught" saying all lives matter and had to correct herself, because they all know that is what they should be saying.

[ISiddiqui]

That only makes sense if O'Malley said: Black Lives Matter, Latino Lives Matter, Indian Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. He didn't. He said Black Lives Matter, White Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. The All Lives Matter movement is basically based on the same notion of the privileged calls making the conversation about them.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That only makes sense if O'Malley said: Black Lives Matter, Latino Lives Matter, Indian Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. He didn't.

Political misstep, because that is exactly what he should have said and probably wanted to say.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The All Lives Matter movement is basically based on the same notion of the privileged calls making the conversation about them.

That makes no sense from the Democratic candidate perspective. Even from a cynical standpoint, it makes more sense for O'Malley (or Sanders or Clinton) to cater to minority protectionism than worrying about including "white" in their speeches.

All lives matter as used by Democratic candidates is a notion that more people need protection than just African-Americans. (Although they certainly need more of it against police brutality and negligence.) Again, protecting the privileged class in this debate would be saying "Police Lives Matter."

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Izulde

As well they should have shouted him down, TBH.

While on the surface it seems confusing, when you look at what's actually going on, it makes perfect sense.

You see, when you have a particular issue like this, where you're trying to call attention to a group that is disadvantaged in some way, when you say something like, "But what about X?!", it repositions the conversation and negates the original argument and focus. It also makes the What about X person look like a pedantic asshole who is patronizing the people discussing the primary issue.

In this case, it's taking the conversation about police brutality towards African-Americans, which is a specifically focused issue, and diffusing it towards a general all lives matter. While all lives matter is a true statement, by uttering it, you've now moved attention from this very spotlighted issue to a generic conversation about police brutality, which ignores the multiplicity of unique factors that are involved in African-American and police relations that lead to a disproportionate amount of law enforcement brutality visited upon blacks.

Similarly, a couple weeks ago, I was in a Facebook conversation discussing a political cartoon where Hillary Clinton was criticized for her looks. The original poster, who was in my high school graduating class and is now a tenure track sociology professor at Notre Dame, pointed out that while disagreeing with Hillary on the issues was certainly fair, attacking her appearance was a gendered thing - one that very rarely happened to male politicians, but often does to female politicians.

In swaggers a guy who says, "I think this should be extended to ALL people being criticized for their physical appearance. Women should not get a special pass on this."

Real patronizing and MRA style, right? I pointed out that American society is constructed around the notion that the primary currency of a woman is her appearance.

He blusters his way against that, gets shot down by pretty much everyone, and the original poster remarks, "In principle I think everyone is on board with a universal protection. But that obscures the documentable fact that women are subjected to job irrelevant physical commentary at much greater rates than men. It's not to say men are never subject to it, or that when they are that they shouldn't be defended. They should. But there is not a systematic problem on the same scale as there are for women."

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I wanted to try (I just woke up, so not very coherent yet to clarify why the protesters did what they did.

Thanks for reminding me why I am not a Democrat lol (not that the Pubs are really giving me much reason to stick around...).

[Butter]

Oh, good, the Democratic Primary thread is turning into just Republicans who literally can't help themselves.

[Solecismic]

Since I don't have super mod powers (except in the subforum where everyone plays TCY2), I just want to give everyone a friendly reminder that I'd like these primary threads not to go the same way every other political thread goes.

We all have our hot-button issues. And we all feel relatively passionately that America would be a better place if everyone agreed with us on those issues. But we don't. And sometimes that makes us divide ourselves into red and blue, because that's a simple way to look at things and our elected officials are, if nothing else, prone to campaign based on simple, digestible concepts.

But when we complain about the lack of quality in our candidates (and there are more than 20 on the two teams now), we're really complaining about ourselves, because this partisan b.s. gives rise to a system where the only qualification is catering to one team and really pissing off the other team.

It's been 14 1/2 years since we've had a president who gave a damn about working with the other team. I think we've forgotten what governing is about and all we do is proclaim our politics. I'm guilty of that, too, even though I'm about equally split on my feelings regarding hot-button issues important to D's and R's.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's been 14 1/2 years since we've had a president who gave a damn about working with the other team.

I'm so old I remember when Obama spent most of his 60 vote period trying to negotiate a bipartisan solution to everything.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL

[Izulde]

Read a satirical article today, of which my favorite line was regarding O'Malley "Weaknesses: He's Tommy Carcetti from The Wire." I know that's a comparison lots of other folks have made, but I still laugh every time I see it.

[Solecismic]

Age will be a topic in the 2016 campaign. Our oldest president at accession was Reagan, at 69.

The Democrats have had, in their history, the following elected first-time ascendants:

Obama 47, Clinton 46, Carter 52, Kennedy 43, Roosevelt 51, Wilson 56, Cleveland 47, Buchanan 65, Pierce 48, Polk 49, Van Buren 54, Jackson 61.

In other words, the last time we elected a new Democrat president over the age of 56 was before Lincoln.

Today's candidates and their ages on 1/20/17:

Chafee 63, Clinton 69, O'Malley 54, Sanders 75, Webb 70.

Since Clinton has a huge lead, but seems very vulnerable in the general, party leadership is trying to draft Joe Biden, who would be 74 at his inauguration.

Is this a problem for a party that has relied on new voters so heavily in recent years?

Or has the internet age simply guaranteed that anyone under the age of 60 who knows how to use a computer has so many skeletons that running for president is impossible?

Is this (yet another) reason the Republicans should find a way to get rid of their current 70-year-old front-runner?

[NobodyHere]

So where are those Democratic debates at?

[Dutch]

They already had them...internally...the party decided for you!

[albionmoonlight]

As a solid Democrat, I am not feeling good about this upcoming election.

We're getting Clinton because . . .

And from what I can tell, the Democrats's strategy in the general is some combination of Trump will run as a third party and old white people keep dying and Hispanic people keep breeding. So we will win!

So our nominee is our nominee because she's our nominee. And she will win the general because of large-scale demographic trends independent of the actual campaigns.

That doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

As a solid Democrat, I am not feeling good about this upcoming election.

We're getting Clinton because . . .

And from what I can tell, the Democrats's strategy in the general is some combination of Trump will run as a third party and old white people keep dying and Hispanic people keep breeding. So we will win!

So our nominee is our nominee because she's our nominee. And she will win the general because of large-scale demographic trends independent of the actual campaigns.

That doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker.

Well, I'd rather depend on this than widespread voter suppression efforts. I think that's a worse bumper sticker.

[ISiddiqui]

To be honest, I think people downplay the level of excitement beyond Clinton. I mean, I guess in some ways I have a small sample size because I hang out with rabid Hillary supporters (and folks working on the campaign), but I've heard "I've been waiting to vote for Hillary for 8 years" quite a bit.

She's also doing quite a fantastic job on social media.

I also think she'll do very well in the general as well. I think Rubio or Bush would make it close, but anyone else and she'd sweep the floor with them.

The Dem strategy (so far) appears to be focusing on income, racial, and gender inequalities and how the GOP doesn't seem to give a shit about any of that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

As a solid Democrat, I am not feeling good about this upcoming election.

We're getting Clinton because . . .

And from what I can tell, the Democrats's strategy in the general is some combination of Trump will run as a third party and old white people keep dying and Hispanic people keep breeding. So we will win!

So our nominee is our nominee because she's our nominee. And she will win the general because of large-scale demographic trends independent of the actual campaigns.

That doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker.

If we get Clinton, it's because people voted for her. If we don't it's because people voted for someone else.

That's one thing that bugs me when people talk about candidates. The party doesn't pick a poor candidate, the voters do.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So where are those Democratic debates at?

I think there's a schedule of six debates planned. Google would tell you.

[Grover]

#feelthebern

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think there's a schedule of six debates planned. Google would tell you.

Ah, there they are!

[Butter]

I kinda want the comedy Joe Biden option, sort of like how the GOP has Trump.

[Solecismic]

I wonder about the primaries, but none other than Half Pint herself has announced she will be running for Congress in my district (though I probably won't be living here anymore when it comes time for the General).

Her husband (Timothy Busfield, from West Wing) has ties to Michigan. They moved to a small town called Howell a few years ago. They've become involved in local politics to some degree, but haven't held office. She made some news last year when she promised that she and Busfield would build a new theater for the area - but only if incumbent Governor Rick Snyder was defeated. He wasn't. No new theater.

They are leaving Howell soon, but to a log cabin they're building off in the country somewhere near here.

So, it will be interesting to see if Melissa Gilbert can contend for this seat. It's Mike Rogers' old seat. Rogers was a big name in the House, noted for his work on Defense. But he retired and a Republican (Mike Bishop) won a close race last year. This is a weirdly gerrymandered district, so turnout in specific areas makes a huge difference. It's also a less red district as new neighborhoods like mine have been built.

She's very popular, being Half Pint and all. Who could dislike little Laura Ingalls? They put her on the big float at the Howell Christmas parade. But can a Hollywood type who has only been around a few years win office? Who knows.

[Wolfpack]

Interesting that they chose Howell of all places to settle into for awhile given the awful reputation that it has among "enlightened" people, especially down Ann Arbor-way. Pretty much everyone in Ann Arbor thought everyone in Howell was a Klansman when I lived there.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Interesting that they chose Howell of all places to settle into for awhile given the awful reputation that it has among "enlightened" people, especially down Ann Arbor-way. Pretty much everyone in Ann Arbor thought everyone in Howell was a Klansman when I lived there.

Give them credit for being sentient people who think for themselves then.

One thing about Ann Arbor - and I grew up there - is that residents like to believe they're cosmopolitan, but they're anything but. When I was in college, I paid my way through as a sports reporter. I got out and knew every high school in the region. It was sometimes surprising.

Howell got its rep because a former Klansman "retired" in Cohoctah Township, which is north of Howell. He didn't hold events out there, but he was a bad guy. Then, when he died, someone made the mistake of holding an estate sale.

Because Ann Arbor is what it is, word got out that Howell was a den of Klansmen rather than Highlanders (the high school nickname). Livingston County votes Republican and Washtenaw County votes Democrat. In Ann Arbor, Republicans don't even bother fielding city council candidates.

So there are/were some bad characters out in Howell, and some lived out in Cohoctah, which is very, very rural and remote. But the vast majority of people I knew out there were horrified by the reputation and did everything they could to make people feel the opposite. Particularly younger people and people around the high school.

Gilbert and Busfield rented a house in Howell - they were perfectly comfortable there, and the town worships them despite their politics. I don't know where their new house will be, but I doubt they'd remain in the area and I doubt she'd run for Congress if she felt any of that crap was true.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This is a weirdly gerrymandered district

Aren't they all?

[NobodyHere]

Well this is nice to see.

Poll: Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37 | Boston Herald

[NobodyHere]

As of this posting Bernie Sanders is leading Iowa's extremely informal "Corn Caucus"

State Fair Poll Results

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Aren't they all?

Like PA. Most statewide office votes are 50/50ish but we've got a 5/13 split on congress and almost all of the districts are non competitive.

[Dutch]

Sanders quits event after things turn too difficult for him to handle.

'Black Lives Matter' Activists Disrupt Bernie Sanders Speech - NBC News

[Izulde]

1) Welcome to like, 2 weeks ago.
2) The event was held later that night and drew thousands.

[Dutch]

Didn't see it mentioned here. But yeah, with all the Republican coverage, I can see how this got lost.

EDIT: Sorry, I see it was mentioned here...should probably stop by this thread more than once every 3 or 4 weeks.

[Julio Riddols]

I'm firmly on board with Sanders, and I hate every other candidate. I just want someone in office with a track record of consistently doing what they think is right, not changing constantly to match what the lobbyists and corporations want. Sanders, to me, represents the will of the people more than anyone, even if the people in a lot of cases still don't get that unity is a much stronger form of opposition to the current state of things than divided bickering.

I am also of the opinion that the black lives matter protesters who disturbed the rally were sent there by an opponent of Sanders, because he even gave them the floor to speak and they had nothing to say.

All that said, I have very little faith in the process, and that will likely continue for the rest of my life. As much as I want to see an end to the world the way it is now, I don't think it is reasonable to expect anything but further splintering and discord going forward. The people as a whole are idiots, and they mostly all have the right to vote. My vote won't be enough to change that, even though I am actually interested in voting for the first time in my life in this election. There is finally a candidate out there that I believe in. Can he change things single handedly? I doubt it. But maybe it would be a small step in the right direction. The people need to speak louder than the corporations and show that we will not be misled.

[Kodos]

Bernie! Bernie!

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Bernie! Bernie!

#feelthebern

[JeeberD]

I just can't get behind him because he's in the union's pockets. Not that I'm finding myself being able to get behind anyone else, though...