The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Lord MJ]

No, you illiterate twerp, I never said that. What I said is that as a Democrat, I will not vote for, and encourage other Democrats not to vote for, said candidate for the nomination. I never said that if the political whore in question got more votes that they should be blocked. That's an entirely separate argument.

I never said that you said that they should be barred from running. I said that you're position is that effectively only party insiders are qualified to run for President because anyone who is not is a "political whore" and that you would not support such candidates as a result.

No, I said party members. You can be a member of a political party and not an "insider", dumbass.

The functions you described earlier clearly refer to party insiders. I for example, am a Democratic party member and beyond giving a donation and spending < 8 hours canvassing I haven't been involved in the party at all. I turn out and vote for Dems most of the time (as I would image Bernie did as well.)

You are trying to claim nefariousness where it doesn't exist. Your argument still boils down to Bernie is being nefarious in some way by simple virtue of the fact he decided to run for President.

[Lord MJ]

This video is a couple years old. But is one of my favorites in breaking down the issue with money in politics both in an easy to understand and short manner.

I don't necessarily agree with some of their proposed solutions (lifetime pensions for former congressmen), but they nail down the problem very well.

[Flagg]

I never said that you said that they should be barred from running. I said that you're position is that effectively only party insiders are qualified to run for President because anyone who is not is a "political whore" and that you would not support such candidates as a result.

No, I said party members. You can be a member of a political party and not an "insider", dumbass.

The functions you described earlier clearly refer to party insiders. I for example, am a Democratic party member and beyond giving a donation and spending < 8 hours canvassing I haven't been involved in the party at all. I turn out and vote for Dems most of the time (as I would image Bernie did as well.)

You are trying to claim nefariousness where it doesn't exist. Your argument still boils down to Bernie is being nefarious in some way by simple virtue of the fact he decided to run for President.

It's nefarious because he decided to run for President on the ticket of a party he kept at arms length for decades and aside from casting votes with them in the senate a lot of the time did exactly jack and shit for. You, proven moron, may not have a problem with that. For me, it's an issue and the longer this dead-ender piece of shit and his republican anti-Clinton sound-byte spewing dumpster whore die hard supporters who apparently believe in miracles (as opposed to math) the less respect I have for the toilet bug. But by all means; "Noun! Verb! Wall Street bad!!!"

[Lord MJ]

It's nefarious because he decided to run for President on the ticket of a party he kept at arms length for decades and aside from casting votes with them in the senate a lot of the time did exactly jack and shit for.

How is that nefarious when our political system requires that to run for President for all intents and purposes you MUST run in either the Democratic or Republican parties? Given that that is the system we have, the relationship he had with the party previous to him deciding to run is completely irrelevant.

[Thanas]

Lord MJ, I seriously suggest you go back and reread the arguements people make against your point, because so far I agree wholeheartedly with what FireNexus said.

Look, I prefer Sanders over Clinton on pure ideology too. Doesn't mean he deserves the nomination, nor do I think Clinton will be worse than Trump. Honestly, anybody who says that need to have their heads examined. The worst you can say about Clinton is that she is a member of the democratic establishment. I still think that the democratic establishment, which gave us plenty of fine candidates and US presidents in the past (FDR, for one) is leaps and bounds above Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd agree with most of that, but would note that the Democratic establishment has changed considerably, for better and for worse, since the days of FDR. And on a personal level, I don't see Clinton being nearly as bold and ambitious in the policies she seeks to enact as someone like FDR. She's a cautious Centre-Right establishment compromiser.

Basically, at best, Clinton is likely to amount to four-eight more years of Obama. Hell, she's been pretty much campaigning as Obama's successor.

That is, however, infinitely preferable to the blustering, bigoted authoritarian demagog who the Republicans have chosen. On that I do not disagree in the slightest.

[Elheru Aran]

I'd agree with most of that, but would note that the Democratic establishment has changed considerably, for better and for worse, since the days of FDR. And on a personal level, I don't see Clinton being nearly as bold and ambitious in the policies she seeks to enact as someone like FDR. She's a cautious Centre-Right establishment compromiser.

That's because FDR's Democratic Party is a very long way away from the modern Democratic Party. FDR was basically riding a tide of Progressives which had been subsumed into the Democratic Party after his cousin Theodore split the Republican vote with the Bull Moose Party. The traditionalist Southern Democrats tolerated him out of party loyalty and the war. Once he passed, they had less affection for Truman, and they went back to their old racist shenanigans, especially after the liberal Republican Eisenhower took office. The Yankee Kennedy continued Eisenhower's liberal policies, but it was Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon that really caused the massive 180 in American politics with Johnson's liberal Great Society reforms and Nixon's dirty campaigning and politics that brought the conservative Southern Democrats over onto the Republican side of the fence.

[Lord MJ]

Lord MJ, I seriously suggest you go back and reread the arguements people make against your point, because so far I agree wholeheartedly with what FireNexus said.

I've read them multiple times. The argument was either one of two things:

1. Campaign contributions do not influence politicians at all. Which defies human history, and incentive structures. It's only corrupting in that it benefits one party over the other (with the GOP getting the bulk of the benefit). Neither Democrats or Republicans are influenced by anyone giving them money (or possibility of holding jobs with corporate contributors after office), nor are the party apparatuses constructed to collect that money influenced in anyway.

2. Democratic politicians and the Democratic party are not influenced by the money, but the Republicans are (which I hope that is not the argument Firenexus made because that would be so ridiculous that it wouldn't even be worthy of the time spent debating it.)

Look, I prefer Sanders over Clinton on pure ideology too. Doesn't mean he deserves the nomination, nor do I think Clinton will be worse than Trump. Honestly, anybody who says that need to have their heads examined. The worst you can say about Clinton is that she is a member of the democratic establishment.

I said that certainly President Trump would be a disaster for this country aside from the risk of him going full facist, he doesn't know what he's doing and he doesn't listen, two very bad combinations. President Clinton would at least how to competently run and manage a country.

I did say however that candidate Clinton has done far more damage than candidate Trump by simple virtue of the fact that she has legitimized corruption. When just a short time ago the Democrats were echoing the exact same points I've been making on this thread. The Democrats even introduced a token amendment to get money out of politics. The same Democratic politicians just a few short years ago were saying, "yes when politicians get money from corporations and they are engaged by the lobbyists of those same groups. And when those corporations for lobby groups to represent their industries of course it influences them." Now in just a few short years, largely because Bernie Sanders raised the point in his campaign, the narrative has completely changed. That is a problem.

I still think that the democratic establishment, which gave us plenty of fine candidates and US presidents in the past (FDR, for one) is leaps and bounds above Trump.

I don't think you can compare the Democratic establishment post 1978 vs 1930s establishment. Even though the establishment was corrupt the in some areas (and the party was better in others.) FDR is a mixed bag, he had economic policies that were desperately needed (and I see Sanders as essentially calling for a second new deal), but among other things he's forever tarnished by his decision to put Japanese Americans into internment camps during WW2.

[Thanas]

I read your post and start to think you are worth debating...and then you shitpost stuff like Clinton has legitimized corruption.

[maraxus2]

I'd agree with most of that, but would note that the Democratic establishment has changed considerably, for better and for worse, since the days of FDR. And on a personal level, I don't see Clinton being nearly as bold and ambitious in the policies she seeks to enact as someone like FDR. She's a cautious Centre-Right establishment compromiser.

Basically, at best, Clinton is likely to amount to four-eight more years of Obama. Hell, she's been pretty much campaigning as Obama's successor.

That is, however, infinitely preferable to the blustering, bigoted authoritarian demagog who the Republicans have chosen. On that I do not disagree in the slightest.

FDR, LBJ, and Obama only got the progressive gains in their administrations because they had huge majorities in Congress. The GOP was reduced down to less than 100 seats after the 1934 elections, and Roosevelt still had no chance of getting major institutional reform passed through either chamber. See his total inability/lack of interest in passing major civil rights legislation. LBJ was the same way. There was a brief 18-month window when the vast majority of the great society legislation got passed, and it immediately collapsed after '66.

Same thing with Obama. He came into the White House with a huge majority in the House and a bare majority in the Senate (thanks to the filibuster). His ability to pass more progressive legislation vanished forever when the GOP retook the House.

It's not the politics of personality that determine whether an administration is a successful/progressive one; it's the majorities in Congress. This is why it is so distressing for party hacks like me that Sanders did relatively little to help out his fellow Dems in Congress, yet promised the moon once he got into the White House.

And as far as being Obama's third term, that strikes me as a pretty good bargain. I'd vote for him over Hillary in a heartbeat if he could run again, and I think most Dems are the same. The man has close to a 90% approval rating among Democrats, after all. Personally, I think Obama's been one of the greatest Presidents since Reagan, and we're going to miss him a whole lot when he's gone.

[Lord MJ]

I read your post and start to think you are worth debating...and then you shitpost stuff like Clinton has legitimized corruption.

If the same people that were saying something is corrupt later say it's perfectly fine that is an issue. Especially barring a reformation of the Republican Party (I can only hope), the Democratic party is the only political bloc we can expect to reasonably address the challenges of this country.

Trump bringing the Republicans into crazy town isn't as big a deal because they already were in crazy town. And there is a small possibility that after Trump hopefully looses that the GOP can start righting itself into a respectable party again.

But until then, the Dems are the best we got, and anything that turns that party south is damaging to the country.

[Lord MJ]

FDR, LBJ, and Obama only got the progressive gains in their administrations because they had huge majorities in Congress. The GOP was reduced down to less than 100 seats after the 1934 elections, and Roosevelt still had no chance of getting major institutional reform passed through either chamber. See his total inability/lack of interest in passing major civil rights legislation. LBJ was the same way. There was a brief 18-month window when the vast majority of the great society legislation got passed, and it immediately collapsed after '66.

The conservative coalition formed during FDR's term I believe. And if I recall correctly the opposition to FDR was against him going too far vs "lets block him on everything". Ironically there was greater bipartisanship in congress back then then now. And I'm not necessarily opposed to the opposition FDR got, his court packing bill deserved to be beaten for example.

Same thing with Obama. He came into the White House with a huge majority in the House and a bare majority in the Senate (thanks to the filibuster). His ability to pass more progressive legislation vanished forever when the GOP retook the House.

In Obama's case, most of the issue people on the left had with him (on this very forum if I recall correctly) is how he handled himself when he had the majority, not after.

It's not the politics of personality that determine whether an administration is a successful/progressive one; it's the majorities in Congress. This is why it is so distressing for party hacks like me that Sanders did relatively little to help out his fellow Dems in Congress, yet promised the moon once he got into the White House.

I'm not sure what Sanders could have done to help out Dems other than saying we need to get the senate back which he has said repeatedly. He repeatedly has said "We need to take back the Senate and we have a good chance of reclaiming the house." Possibly showing up on the campaign trail with Democrats, but we're still in primary season now for Senate and House races. Possibly directing his small donors to donate to the parties, but the fundraising system essentially does that by default when you go to donate to a Democratic candidate.

And as far as being Obama's third term, that strikes me as a pretty good bargain. I'd vote for him over Hillary in a heartbeat if he could run again, and I think most Dems are the same. The man has close to a 90% approval rating among Democrats, after all. Personally, I think Obama's been one of the greatest Presidents since Reagan, and we're going to miss him a whole lot when he's gone.

I would certainly vote for Obama over Hillary. I can agree here.

[maraxus2]

The conservative coalition formed during FDR's term I believe. And if I recall correctly the opposition to FDR was against him going too far vs "lets block him on everything". Ironically there was greater bipartisanship in congress back then then now. And I'm not necessarily opposed to the opposition FDR got, his court packing bill deserved to be beaten for example.

It's not ironic at all. There were lots of conservative Democrats (mainly white supremacists down in the South) and lots of liberal Republicans (think people like LaGuardia). The conservative coalition formed in response to the court-packing bill, and completely killed Roosevelt's domestic programs. He didn't get a single major piece of non-war related domestic legislation passed after 1937. So much for dedication and skill, I suppose.

In Obama's case, most of the issue people on the left had with him (on this very forum if I recall correctly) is how he handled himself when he had the majority, not after.

I see. How would he have gotten Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to vote for the Public Option, exactly?

I'm not sure what Sanders could have done to help out Dems other than saying we need to get the senate back which he has said repeatedly. He repeatedly has said "We need to take back the Senate and we have a good chance of reclaiming the house." Possibly showing up on the campaign trail with Democrats, but we're still in primary season now for Senate and House races. Possibly directing his small donors to donate to the parties, but the fundraising system essentially does that by default when you go to donate to a Democratic candidate.

Maybe raising money for Democratic candidates or speaking on their behalf? It's not as though he's without a constituency. There are lots of ways that a Senator, even one who's historically been little more than furniture, can be useful to down-ballot candidates. I'm speaking historically, not in terms of this campaign.

[Lord MJ]

It's not ironic at all. There were lots of conservative Democrats (mainly white supremacists down in the South) and lots of liberal Republicans (think people like LaGuardia). The conservative coalition formed in response to the court-packing bill, and completely killed Roosevelt's domestic programs. He didn't get a single major piece of non-war related domestic legislation passed after 1937. So much for dedication and skill, I suppose.

Aside from the racism, I like the idea of liberal and conservative factions in both parties. More stuff can actually get done. But if it's true that the court packing bill is the primary reason that the conservative coalition came to be, well then it really was FDR's fault there.

I see. How would he have gotten Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to vote for the Public Option, exactly?

Would've been difficult given that they both decided to leave office after their terms, which would've neutralized a lot of the leverage Obama would've had over them. But for the other blue dogs? The threat of primaries would be a good motivator. If enough of the blue dogs came around, Nelson and Lieberman being the sole holdouts would've been politically uncomfortable for them. I'm not saying it would've worked. I'm saying the attempt should've been made.

And the Public Option while cutting out a lot of the bloat with Obamacare would've been a much better sell than what was actually passed. What is easier to sell to voters a few regulations to cut out abuse by insurance companies + public option, or 1000+ pages of regulations?

Obamacare actually was a self inflicted wound for the Democrats in that it contained things that gave the GOP plenty of ammunition and are harder to defend, while being such an essential piece of legislation (we can't afford to go back to the way things were) that we (Democrats) had to fight to keep it.

Ironically those blue dogs that lost their seats may have had an easier time keeping them with the public option in place. But we will never know.

Maybe raising money for Democratic candidates or speaking on their behalf? It's not as though he's without a constituency. There are lots of ways that a Senator, even one who's historically been little more than furniture, can be useful to down-ballot candidates. I'm speaking historically, not in terms of this campaign.

Raising money how exactly? Would he prior to this campaign have been able to get enough small donors as a Vermont Senator prior to his presidential run be able to raise an appreciable level of money. He wasn't known then except for people that follow politics religiously.

[maraxus2]

Aside from the racism, I like the idea of liberal and conservative factions in both parties. More stuff can actually get done. But if it's true that the court packing bill is the primary reason that the conservative coalition came to be, well then it really was FDR's fault there.

It was, along with gestalt conservative resentment with New Deal policies. And this is why having ideologically diverse parties can be a serious problem. The American political system already makes it extremely difficult for Presidents to govern, even after they have landslide victories. People cast their vote for a Democratic President and expect the Democratic Congress to more-or-less conform with the President's mandates. When the Dems had a conservative faction, sometimes an extremely conservative faction, it was virtually impossible for a Democratic president to pass meaningful progressive legislation. That's why the American Political Science Association moaned about ideological diversity in Congress for, like, fifty years. If the Dems need to pass legislation based on the 218th least-conservative Democrat in the House and the 60th least-conservative Democrat in the Senate, you can see why this would be problematic.

Much better to have an ideologically cohesive party. Liberals should be voting for the Democratic candidate and conservatives should vote Republican. Ideological diversity clouds that choice and makes Congress less effective, not more.

Would've been difficult given that they both decided to leave office after their terms, which would've neutralized a lot of the leverage Obama would've had over them. But for the other blue dogs? The threat of primaries would be a good motivator. If enough of the blue dogs came around, Nelson and Lieberman being the sole holdouts would've been politically uncomfortable for them. I'm not saying it would've worked. I'm saying the attempt should've been made.

Primaries? Who the hell would primary any of the House Blue Dogs from the left? A lot of those Congressional districts effectively had no Democrats above the county level, save from the Blue Dogs representing those Congressional seats. Chet Edwards and Gene Taylor were both conservative Dems who represented conservative districts that would not be friendly towards a more lefty Democrat. Where would you find a Waco or Biloxi Democrat to take them on? Why do you think they'd be more viable than either of those two?

And it wouldn't make them more likely to vote at all; the Senate basically doesn't give a shit about what goes on in the House, not the least because they've got to run statewide. And considering Lieberman blocked the public option AND lowering the Medicare age, despite specifically supporting both in his 2006 re-election campaign, what on earth makes you think that he'd have switched his vote if a few Blue Dogs switched theirs?

The rest of your point is wank on the public option, which is entirely irrelevant since the Dems didn't have the votes for it in the first place.

Raising money how exactly? Would he prior to this campaign have been able to get enough small donors as a Vermont Senator prior to his presidential run be able to raise an appreciable level of money. He wasn't known then except for people that follow politics religiously.

Raising money by stumping for people and tapping his union contacts for additional, specifically directed, support. Bernie's been well-known on the progressive side of the Dems for a really long time, and him stumping for a candidate could: A. raise their profile and put them in contact with the Netroots, B. signal to like-minded progressives that they might be viable, C. raise at least one dollar more than they would have otherwise received. All of these things are useful. Again, this is why it's distressing to party hacks like me that Bernie didn't really do that.

[Grumman]

Then your first paragraph is foolish, because the argument "Clinton voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War" could equally well be used on an overwhelming majority of everyone who was in Congress between Sept. 11, 2001 and December 2004. And for that matter, you could use it on a majority of the American population. Because at the time both the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq enjoyed widespread popular support, a fact which we tend to try and toss down the memory hole for some reason. So you're not only arguing that Clinton is no better than Trump, you're arguing that 70% or 80% of all of Congress is no better than Trump. Or, conversely, that Trump is no worse than most politicians who were in office from 2000-2004.

I don't need to tie myself in knots to justify thinking those 70% to 80% of congressmen are fit to be President because we only need one new President every four to eight years, not a hundred. We can afford to be picky, because we only need to find the best five to ten people out of the entire United States before the pool of eligible candidates rotates.

[maraxus2]

I don't need to tie myself in knots to justify thinking those 70% to 80% of congressmen are fit to be President because we only need one new President every four to eight years, not a hundred. We can afford to be picky, because we only need to find the best five to ten people out of the entire United States before the pool of eligible candidates rotates.

If we're going by your logic, Bernie shouldn't be President either. He voted for the authorization of military force in Afghanistan, which started a war that's been just as regionally toxic as Iraq. Matter of fact, the only one to vote against that resolution is my Congresswoman, Barbara Lee. Maybe she should be President, since she's shown more foreign policy judgment than Sanders has?

I'm being hyperbolic, of course, but I'm just trying to illustrate that good votes do not necessarily make a good President. You're the one with absurd notion that Hillary was voting for "authoritarianism" when she voted for the PATRIOT ACT (which, by the by, is probably the most mild authoritarianism this country's ever known), and voted for "racism and xenophobia" by voting for Iraq. By that purity test, nobody in public life is fit for the office of the Presidency, since everyone's cast votes that turned bad in retrospect.

[Flagg]

Lie-Berman wasn't even a Democrat when he stabbed Obama and the rest of the Democrats in the back on the Public Option and lowering the Medicare age. He lost his primary over his love affair with John McCain and won his seat as an independent then Caucused with the Democrats so he could turn traitor and cock us (America) in the ass with blood as lubricant.

[Terralthra]

"In retrospect" implies there weren't people warning about the massive civil liberty infringements in the USA PATRIOT Act, and about the deceptive rationale for going to war in Iraq, not to mention the negative consequences thereof. Also, equating the use of military force in Afghanistan (from which we were attacked) and the use of military force in Iraq (which was based on a series of lies) is a fallacious. Yes, the war in Afghanistan has similarly resulted in a poor outcome. That doesn't mean there wasn't at least a reason to engage militarily.

Rep. Lee voted against the USA PATRIOT Act both times and both uses of military force, so I'd probably support her if she ran for President, even though she's from the wrong side of the Bay. =]

[Simon_Jester]

This "Democrats continue to push center right" nonsense can only be coming from someone who politically awakened during or after the 2008 election. Democrats have swung hard left since the 1990s. That Obama governs from the center-to-slightly-right is usually the implicit or explicit justification for this belief. The problem is that Obama was always center-right. The Democratic Party was also much further right even as recently as 2010. Remember that a public option couldn't pass a Democratic congress. A public option would easily pass if Dems controlled the House and Senate tomorrow.

The Democrats haven't forked right. Their base has gone left, faster than anybody thought, and they've been slow to react.

Dems have been forking right well before Obama came into office. It's been going on since the mid 80s which is shortly after money in politics started to become an epidemic.

While individual Democratic politicians have made the choice to 'fork right' from the point of view of their own party, the party itself is still moving left or remaining static. Do you think Democrats would have chosen to dig in on gay marriage in 1975? Nope! Did Democrats in 1975 consistently blast Wall Street? No more so than today.

Case in point, Bernie Sanders would be a standard Democrat with his views during the 70s. Now he is considered far left.

Sanders was considered a goddamn commie in the 1970s and no one in the Democratic Party establishment would have touched him with a ten foot pole. Now he's considered a somewhat alarming socialist and people touch him with a three foot pole.

Are you saying that the Democrats of the 1970s were self-identified socialists here? Or are you saying Sanders has moved drastically toward the right?

A public option could have passed a Democratic Congress earlier, the leadership simply did not care enough to fight for it, and Obama was obsessed with getting bipartisan support (He's been itching to have one big bipartisan accomplishment that he could add to his legacy).

As noted, there were elements within the Democratic Party that were heavily entrenched to resist single payer health care. Not many, but some. Honestly, the events surrounding the ACA represent the last stand of the conservative Democrats- but those were the actions of conservative Democrats, who subsequently lost power or changed parties, precisely because the Democrats have been moving left (or standing still while overall shifts within the country move them left).

You don't know a whole lot, do you? Congressional democrats were further right on average in the 1970s. And Sanders has been saying the exact same shit since then, and he was considered even more radically liberal then. I don't know where you got the idea that he was an ideological fit with the average 1970s Democrat, but if it wasn't right from your ass it was from somebody who got it from theirs...

Wrong. That analysis is skewed by the simple notion that back in the 70s the Democrats were still split between liberal northern Dems and more conservative southern dems. Someone with Bernie Sanders current positions would not be considered far left. We would be smack in the middle of the liberal Democrats back then. Now Bernie Sanders is by far the most liberal Senator.

I wanted you to prove this at the time, he asked you to, and you never did. Are you seriously arguing that Sanders is 'center-left' by the standards of 1975 Democrats?

So today we don't have true "conservative" Democrats. Particularly since the Blue Dogs were wiped out in 2010 by the Tea party. But the party as a whole has shifted to the right.

In case you've forgotten, travel further back in time, even during the days when conservative Democrats were still a powerful force (ruling the entire south) the liberal arm of the party was still able to push through the New Deal. Or for that matter Civil Rights legislation. Yes in the past the liberal democrats were more effective even when half of their party were staunch conservatives!

Because half the Republican Party was as liberal or more liberal than they were.

It turns out that two parties, each half liberal and half conservative, is more conductive to getting liberal reforms in play than two parties that are 100% ideologically defined and constantly battling for dominance. Who could have guessed?

Completely irrelevant to whether a public option could have been passed if Obama had pushed for it. The fact is he didn't. He didn't really want the public option. Furthermore I would argue that if they did vote for a public option they would have a much better chance of keeping their seats.

How is adamant opposition from conservative Democrats "completely irrelevant" to whether Obama could get the public option just by 'fighting for it?' The entire point here is that Obama would have had to fight for conservative Democratic votes almost as hard as he had to fight for Republican votes, because at that time, there was still significant Democratic opposition to the public option.

As to "if they did vote for a public option they would have a much better chance of keeping their seats," thing is, they didn't believe that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it honestly doesn't matter because at the time the conservative Democrats saw their best electoral strategy as trying to oppose Obamacare.

I would also add that that chart scores offers little to indicate how a liberal score of -1 in the 112th congress compares in anyway to a liberal score of -1 in the 93rd congress.

The entire political spectrum has shifted to the right. So therefore the Democrats position relative to the entire spectrum might be more left leaning within that spectrum today than it was 5 years ago or 40 years ago. But since the spectrum itself has shifted right then the party itself has shifted right.

Can you prove that the entire political spectrum has shifted right? On social issues it has shifted sharply left in many ways. On economic issues it has mostly held steady.

The big difference is that with an ideologically conservative Republican Party gaining access to massive power from donations, the conservatives have been able to dominate the terms of political debate. It's not the actual positions of the Democratic Party that moved, it's the noise that moved.

---

And as far as being Obama's third term, that strikes me as a pretty good bargain. I'd vote for him over Hillary in a heartbeat if he could run again, and I think most Dems are the same. The man has close to a 90% approval rating among Democrats, after all. Personally, I think Obama's been one of the greatest Presidents since Reagan, and we're going to miss him a whole lot when he's gone.

To be fair, "one of the greatest since Reagan" is equivalent to saying "one of the top two out of four."

I don't need to tie myself in knots to justify thinking those 70% to 80% of congressmen are fit to be President because we only need one new President every four to eight years, not a hundred. We can afford to be picky, because we only need to find the best five to ten people out of the entire United States before the pool of eligible candidates rotates.

Except that realistically, we will NEVER have one of the saintliest five to ten people in the US actually running as presidential candidates. It's just not going to happen, because the list of candidates is limited to people who have political experience, decide to run, and gain the support of a large organized political party.

So the only consequence of saying "I will never support anyone who voted for anything I think is Very Bad in hindsight EVER, regardless of the historical context of their actions" is, well... total disengagement from politics. You're neutralizing your impact by trying to condemn the very existence of politics as it actually exists.

"In retrospect" implies there weren't people warning about the massive civil liberty infringements in the USA PATRIOT Act, and about the deceptive rationale for going to war in Iraq, not to mention the negative consequences thereof.

Honestly I agree it's fallacious. But the catch is, refusing to support anyone other than Barbara Lee, using the Afghanistan war vote as a purity test, is just a more extreme example of what Grumman is already insisting we do.

There's no clearly defined limit to how 'pure' we can 'reasonably' expect our presidential candidates to be. Obviously this reduces to an absurd outcome where literally no one who has ever held office is worthy of office, or where by process of elimination we are limited to supporting like one of two or three people in the whole country, many of whom may well have other issues concealed by their inconceivably clean voting record.

[maraxus2]

That's my point. It's a silly standard in every way.

[maraxus2]

In other news, Nevada had its Democratic Convention on Saturday. Things did not go well. Have I mentioned that we need to chuck the caucus system?

Here’s what happened at Saturday’s dramatic Nevada Democratic convention
by Philip Bump May 15, 2016 3 min read original
Social footage captured the raucous Nevada Democratic Convention on May 14 in Las Vegas. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)
Saturday's raucous state Democratic convention in Nevada encapsulated a lot of the themes of the party's 2016 election in a relatively short period: complex delegate math, inscrutable processes, allegations of deceit, fury — and a result that doesn't do much of anything to shift the race's eventual outcome.

Nevada's process for sending delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia is among the most complex. When the state caucused in late February, the fourth state on the calendar for the Democratic Party, the results of that process favored Hillary Clinton. Twenty-three of the 35 total bound delegates were given out proportionally in the state's four congressional districts, giving Clinton a delegate lead of 13 to 10. The results of the caucus suggested that after the state convention — which bound the state's seven at-large delegates and five delegates who are elected officials or party leaders — Clinton would end up with a 20-to-15 lead over Bernie Sanders, with Clinton winning one more delegate from the at-large pool (4-to-3) and one more from the party-leader pool (3-to-2) than Sanders.

The people who attend the Democratic convention this weekend were chosen during voting in early April. At that point, Sanders out-organized Clinton, getting 2,124 people elected to the state convention (according to the tabulation at the always-essential delegate-tracking site the Green Papers) to Clinton's 1,722. That suggested that voting at the state convention would flip: Sanders would win those 4-to-3 and 3-to-2 contests, giving him a 7-to-5 victory at the convention and making the state total 18-to-17 for Clinton instead of 20-to-15.

But that's not what happened, as best as we can piece together.

On Friday, Sanders's campaign released a statement (apparently after a conversation with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid) thanking his supporters in the state and saying that working together "respectfully and constructively on Saturday at the Nevada Democratic convention" would help the party beat Donald Trump in November. On Saturday morning, though, there was tumult.

Prior to the state convention, some Sanders supporters began an effort to shift the convention rules in a way that they viewed as more favorable to their candidate. One of those changes, the Las Vegas Sun reported, was a process for verifying voice votes; another took issue with the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, heading up the convention. Supporters at the event circulated petitions to the same end. The scene was set.

The first report from the credentials committee on Saturday morning indicated that Clinton had a slight edge in delegates. Sanders fans voted against that report, per Jon Ralston, and then demanded a recount — but this was simply a preliminary figure. As in the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, the final total delegates went through a process of realignment as the day progressed.

That was when the vote to approve the rules as written — Roberta's Rules versus Robert's Rules, as some Sanders backers dubbed them — was conducted by voice vote. The motion, seconded by a Sanders supporter, passed — which is when the room, in Ralston's phrasing, "erupts." Ensuing speakers, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (a Clinton supporter), were interrupted by a vocal group of Sanders supporters at the front of the room.

There was some sort of scuffle, though it's not clear what, and an apparently unrelated medical emergency.

All of that tension set the stage for the final votes. The ultimate total reported by KOLO-TV was 1,695 Clinton delegates to 1,662 for Sanders, giving Clinton that one-delegate total in the at-large and party-leader pools. But the drama was far from over. Fifty-six Sanders delegates — enough to swing the majority — were denied delegate status, mostly because they weren't registered as Democrats by the May 1 deadline, according to the state party. (The Sun reports that eight potential Clinton delegates suffered a similar fate.)

Convention leaders declined to reconsider those 56 delegates, and, spurred by the casino — because the event was already well past its scheduled ending time — adjourned for the day. Sanders supporters refused to concede, remaining in the casino's ballroom after the event had ended. Eventually, casino security and law enforcement officials entered to force the Democrats out of the space, even turning off the lights to get them to depart.


Thanks to Clinton's victory in Nevada on Saturday, hard-fought on the carpeted floor of the Paris hotel and casino in Las Vegas, her lead over Sanders extends to 282, per delegate-counter Daniel Nichanian. Had Sanders's supporters been successful on Saturday, that margin would have been 278 — a number that still demands that the senator win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to take the lead.

What probably worries Clinton supporters at the moment, though, isn't their candidate losing the nomination. It's the prospect of a scene like that in Las Vegas playing out before a national television audience in July in Philadelphia.

Link

TL;DR is that Sanders people tried to pack the State caucus like they did with the precinct/county caucuses. Didn't work because Clinton had near as many people there as Sanders did. Then Sanders supporters tried to fight a proxy battle over the rules rather than fighting over the total delegates. They behaved appallingly towards Boxer and tried to shout down Lange and the people on the dais. The caucus ran long and started getting really ugly, so the casino kicked them out. Also they were over the time that they'd reserved for the casino.

Net result is that Clinton earned slightly more delegates than she was supposed to per the Feb. Caucus. Also I have yet another piece of evidence that caucuses are awful and should be chucked in the dustbin of history.

So much for respecting the "will of the people."

[Terralthra]

As usual, the Washington Post tells a very one-sided story favoring Sec. Clinton. Other reports conflict with this over what exactly happened, and neither side appeared to demonstrate much respect for the rules as written. At least we agree on the caucus system being stupid.

[Flagg]

Well at least its name is honest in that it "cocks", aka "fucks" us. It really is stupid, and like the electoral college meant for a bygone age.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, I fail to see why we cannot simply have one nationwide semi-open (i.e. independents can vote but not members of other parties) primary for the nominees with the result determined by popular vote alone. Hold a runoff if no one gets a majority of votes. It would greatly simplify the whole mess, while being actually democratic.