Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Skeptic Ginger]

For me, the calculus is simple: Hillary Clinton is a corrupt insider. I trust the American institutions of government to moderate the extremes of Bernie Sanders, a lot more than I trust them to safeguard us from the corruption of Hillary Clinton.

Corruption is GW Bush screwing up the rebuilding of Iraq big time awarding contract after contract to his cronies who took the money and then fled Iraq leaving shoddy failing infrastructure behind.

Corruption is billions in cash delivered to Iraq that to this day remains unaccounted for.

Corruption is Cheney claiming he made no money off the Iraq war contracts with Halliburton when in reality he reaped millions from his stock options.

Corruption is the push to privatize schools resulting in scams like the Corinthian Colleges that encouraged the poor to take out student loans, reaped the profits then tried to leave the students with the debt. Fortunately in that case they were found guilty of fraud and the students will get some debt relief.


So what are Clinton's corrupt acts? Accepting the going rate for a person of her stature for speaking fees that would be just fine for a man with the same qualifications but are claimed to be bribes because women don't earn that much?

The lie that the Clinton Foundation is not using their donations for the work they say they are because a charity accountability organization said they couldn't assess the Foundation yet because the Foundation did the work internally rather than simply giving grants to other NGOs?

Or are you thinking of the Whitewater missing files? The travel agency firings? Does that compare to GW Bush's firing of 8 Attorneys General because they wouldn't go along with political prosecutions in their respective states? Does it compare to replacing career lawyers in the DoJ with 150 new graduates from the then unaccredited Liberty Regents Law School?


Because it seems to me you might have an odd definition of corruption.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

For me, the calculus is simple: Hillary Clinton is a corrupt insider. I trust the American institutions of government to moderate the extremes of Bernie Sanders, a lot more than I trust them to safeguard us from the corruption of Hillary Clinton.

Corruption aside, I'm more worried that Hillary will insist that we must all wear the new reichstag uniform, the pantsuit -- and I'm terrified it make my butt look big.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Corruption aside, I'm more worried that Hillary will insist that we must all wear the new reichstag uniform, the pantsuit -- and I'm terrified it make my butt look big.

What terrifies me, is that after Uber Hippie is a footnote, you'll do a bunk and we'll lose all this classy frat boy sexist humor you're providing.

 

[Trakar]

Corruption is GW Bush screwing up the rebuilding of Iraq big time...

The corruption was thinking that we could or should rebuild Iraq.

 

[luchog]

Today's Caucus in Washington

I just spent the morning at our district Democratic Party caucus, and thought I'd pop in to share a few observations. The split between the Hillary and Bernie voters was pronounced, and very telling.

The Clinton group was almost exclusively middle-aged or older. I saw a total of one person in the Clinton camp under 40, a women who appeared to be in her early 30s. They were 60-65% women. They were also overwhelmingly white. (I live in one of the most diverse regions of the city, so this is actually significant.) They were also exclusively straight couples and women of unknown orientation. All appeared to be born and raised Americans. Economically, the Clinton voters were almost entirely of middle to upper-middle class, conservative appearance (again, only one exception that I saw).

By contrast, the Sanders group was much more diverse, with ages ranging from those barely old enough to vote, to senior citizens. The balance was about 60-65% under-40; but we had our share of over-40s as well. There was a much more diverse racial mix -- Black, Hispanic, Asian -- the Sanders group having the overwhelming majority of all minority caucusers. In fact, other than a tiny number of middle-aged black women, and one middle-aged black man, pretty much all the minority caucusers were in the Sanders camp. GLBTQ cacusers were also strongly represented in the Sanders camp. A lot of the Sanders voters were also immigrants, some of them older, some younger. Appearances were also much more diverse, ranging from lower/working class to upper-middle class, conservative to outsider/underground.

A preliminary vote was taken, and it overwhelmingly favoured Sanders.

When it came time for the supporters to speak, the Clinton supporters were predictably all pushing the same angle: She is an establishment politician and can work with the establishment, particularly establishment Republicans, to be more effective; and she has more foreign policy experience. That was pretty much it. There were a lot of flowery images and metaphors, but ultimately that's what the words amounted it. We should elect Clinton because she's more electable and more effective.

Sanders supporters, on the other hand, focused on the problems with the establishment, Sanders strong and more consistent voting record on minority rights, particularly GLBTQ rights and womens' rights, his economic and healthcare polices, and his foreign policies. Much mention was made of the need to break out of the establishment as it stands. One middle-aged women, a Croatian immigrant who moved to America because of the war and became a citizen, blasted Clinton on her foreign policy record. Others took Clinton to task for her record on GLBTQ rights. Speakers largely eschewed flowery images and metaphors, preferring to stick with the blunt political facts and policies.

The final vote was roughly 75% Sanders, 25% Clinton, with no undecideds that I noticed (all those I saw who who came in undecided voted for Sanders in the final); and delegates were apportioned accordingly. No one who was decided during the preliminary voting switched camps; all but a minuscule fraction of the voters had made up their minds before they walked in.

If our district is representative of the state, and I believe it is, Sanders should win the state by a very large margin, 60-40 or better.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The corruption was thinking that we could or should rebuild Iraq.

The corruption was who the money was paid to. Why we got involved isn't all that relevant to where the money went.

Dishonesty selling the war, that's a different kind of corruption, but yeah, still corruption.

 

[luchog]

Congress depends on votes, too. If our elected representatives don't want to play ball, we can elect new ones.

And there are a whole lot of them up for election at the same time the president is. If the progressive wave holds for Sanders, it will likely hold for Congress too. All of the House seats are up for election, along with 34 of the Senate seats, mostly currently occupied by Republicans.

Clinton supports who insist that Sanders will be stymied by the Republican majority consistently fail to notice that situations; and the fact that a large progressive turnout means that it is extremely likely that the balance of power in Congress is about to shift as well. (They also fail to notice that the GOP has a serious hate for Clinton, and she's likely to be just as stymied as Sanders by a GOP-majority Congress.)

 

[luchog]

You said this and linked to a news article:

Cherry picking to misrepresent what I said. I already said it wasn't an anti-Sanders conspiracy, but affected all Democrat voters; and that the Latino vote appears evenly split.

And since you've blocked contradictory facts posted by others, here ya go: http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ains-between-chicagos-black-and-latino-voters. There's your citation on the Chicago Latino vote, which overwhelmingly supported Sanders, 13 wards out of 14. It was the Black vote that gave Illinois to Clinton. The comments from Black voters in that article are also quite telling.

In any case, you're being dishonest and derogatory, and I'm no longer interested in responding to either.

 

[luchog]

The corruption was who the money was paid to. Why we got involved isn't all that relevant to where the money went.

Dishonesty selling the war, that's a different kind of corruption, but yeah, still corruption.

You really can't see the contradiction in those two statements? Corruption doesn't matter, except it did. Got it.

Why we got into the war is at least as relevant, and possibly even more so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

According to you a troll is someone you don't agree with. You claimed a conspiracy, then denied you meant it was against Sanders.

So say so but don't get pissed at people who interpret you claiming a CT against Sanders given you are an entrenched Sanders supporter bringing up voter suppression in AZ and you also claim low income Latinos favor Sanders.

No one is trolling you but you sure are bitter at people who don't support Sanders.

BTW, it's Democratic voters, not Democrat voters. You of all people should not be repeating Frank Luntz's attempt to change the name of the Democratic Party to the Democrat Party because it sounds bad.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You really can't see the contradiction in those two statements? Corruption doesn't matter, except it did. Got it.

Why we got into the war is at least as relevant, and possibly even more so.

Are you defending Bush now?

Seriously dude, you need to lighten up on Clinton supporters. We're ultimately on the same side.

 

[luchog]

Are you defending Bush now?

Aaand, we're back to the dishonesty. I said I wasn't going to stoop to addressing it, but I will this last time. We got into a bad war. Why we got into a bad war is just as important as the war itself. The Why was just as corrupt as the What. How you can possibly twist that into support for Bush boggles the mind, and again points up your dishonesty in this thread.

Seriously dude, you need to lighten up on Clinton supporters. We're ultimately on the same side.

That's not at all evident from your posts, particularly your constant insulting, denigration, misrepresentation, and dismissal of Sanders supporters; and the similar actions of other Clinton supporters. It's not strictly evident from Clinton's voting record either; and it's only the prospect of a Trump or Cruz presidency that could possibly convince me to hold my nose and vote for her if Sanders ultimately does not get the nomination. If it comes down to a Clinton nomination, and a contested convention handing the GOP nomination to Kasich, I'll be sitting this one out.

 

[luchog]

Total from my district at last count: 44 delegates for Sanders, 16 for Clinton, with 2 undecided.

 

[Manopolus]

If it comes down to a Clinton nomination, and a contested convention handing the GOP nomination to Kasich, I'll be sitting this one out.

I would actually vote for Kasich in that case. I don't like him, but I would rather see the congress go the other way in two years (as it usually does), than have a Clinton presidency. The same doesn't hold true for Cruz or Trump -- either would be evil incarnate from my perspective. Kasich is the only Republican I'd cross the aisle for, although the general campaigns could probably still change my mind. Stein would be another possibility, of course.

What I'm saying is that Hillary would have a lot of damn work to do to get my vote unless the alternative is Trump or Cruz. Seeing as I don't like the way she campaigns in the first place, I doubt she's up to it. Primarily, I just don't consider her to be honest. That's not because of Republican smears. That is because of her personality and campaign tactics -- including some things she did in the debates.

That bizarre claim that she can't be the "establishment" candidate because she's a woman comes to mind. I'm quite fine with having a female president (Elizabeth Warren would be awesome), but the mere fact that she's female isn't a good reason to vote for her. Also, she's not a female that has name recognition by her own merits anyway -- we know her because of Bill's presidency. Yeah, we might have gotten to know her otherwise (no way to know), but that is how she got where she is. Obviously the statement was just a diversion from the topic by appealing to her female-ness. It didn't actually answer the claim that she is the establishment candidate in the least. Why would she deny that it is the truth, anyway? It's quite obvious that she has the support of the establishment. Why not make that seem a good thing, rather than trying to contradict it with some ridiculous bit of feminist snark?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I would actually vote for Kasich in that case. I don't like him, but I would rather see the congress go the other way in two years (as it usually does), than have a Clinton presidency. The same doesn't hold true for Cruz or Trump -- either would be evil incarnate from my perspective. Kasich is the only Republican I'd cross the aisle for, although the general campaigns could probably still change my mind. Stein would be another possibility, of course.

This fits with that recent Bloomberg poll where both Killary and Bernie beat both Cruz and Trump (Bernie with larger margins in both cases), but while Bernie also beats Kasich, Killary loses to him by the same margin Bernie wins (4%).

 

[Manopolus]

Washington vote is coming in. So far, it's at around 75% for Sanders. It's only the smaller precincts showing though.

Garfield County had a huge turnout of 5 persons. That was Clinton's best performance so far -- she only lost 3-2 (60/40).

 

[Trakar]

You really can't see the contradiction in those two statements? Corruption doesn't matter, except it did. Got it.

Why we got into the war is at least as relevant, and possibly even more so.

Which goes to my point, that if we hadn't invaded Iraq in a war of unprovoked aggression, there wouldn't have been a valid reason to even attempt to rebuild a foreign nation state that was more amenable to our geopolitical and commercial interests.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Aaand, we're back to the dishonesty. ....

No we are not. We are back to your snark that keeps you from having a discussion about anything you disagree about.

 

[Trakar]

I would actually vote for Kasich in that case. I don't like him, but I would rather see the congress go the other way in two years (as it usually does), than have a Clinton presidency. The same doesn't hold true for Cruz or Trump -- either would be evil incarnate from my perspective. Kasich is the only Republican I'd cross the aisle for, although the general campaigns could probably still change my mind. Stein would be another possibility, of course.

I understand your perspective, but I feel differently. Politically, I see little difference between Hillary and Kasich aside form the words they use when speaking to their bases. Which means that if they were the Dem and Rep candidates, I would vote for Dr. Stein. Cruz, I agree with you, full blown apocalyptic dominionist Canadian-American jihadist. Trump, however, is more of a chaotic wildcard. He has been saying a lot of offensively crazy stuff and quite a bit of insanely offensive stuff during the primaries that have actually positioned him with a strong lead among the GOP base. But as he begins to pivot for a general election run, we are starting to hear more movement to the center. I don't think that Trump really buys into the full hardcore fundamentalist social and economic conservatism fringe that has corrupted much of the GOP. Not that I would vote for him, but neither do I fear him as much as both the establishment Republican party members and the establishment Democratic party members seem to.

What I'm saying is that Hillary would have a lot of damn work to do to get my vote unless the alternative is Trump or Cruz. Seeing as I don't like the way she campaigns in the first place, I doubt she's up to it. Primarily, I just don't consider her to be honest. That's not because of Republican smears. That is because of her personality and campaign tactics -- including some things she did in the debates...

My primary issue with Hillary is the issue you mention, I feel that I have zero trust in what she says. I can't vote for someone when I doubt, question, and have no faith in anything which they state or profess.

A Cruz v Clinton general, is the only one which would give me serious pause and problems as to what I would do in November.

 

[Manopolus]

LOL, showing one precinct for King County so far (Seattle). It's 1-1 with apparently only two participants. That can't be right. That would be ridiculous.

AP calls Alaska for Sanders -- my watch site shows him with 78.7% of the vote with 15/40 precincts reporting.