Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

The real mystery to me is why the DNC worked so hard to undermine Bernie when he never had a chance of winning anyways. Hillary beat him soundly in the popular vote and she beat him with the non-superdelegates.

That is true now, but for awhile there they were worried that if Berne won Nevada he could have done the same think Obama did. He was raising a crap load of cash. I know internally their polls had Hillary Clinton behind Bernie Sanders in Nevada.

[Hannibal]

And not to defend the DNC, but this peek into how the sausage is made should surprise no one.

It was long overdue. The Republicans and traditional Conservative institutions had their "pull back the curtain" moments decades ago, whether they be Watergate or the dozens of government investigations into the energy industry. I have been waiting for years for the Democrats and the traditionally Liberal institutions to get their "pull back the curtain moment" too. The Democrats now have. I'm hoping that there is also a hack of the New York Times or CNN coming some day. We got a tiny taste of that with the leaked DNC e-mails but not a full-on humiliation.

[CGVT]

This shit will all be over by the end of the convention, Hillary will get her post convention bump and it will be forgotten by November.

[froot loops]

Seems like a reasonable explanation.

I would think that courting the Bernie supporters would be more important than appeasing the hard core party members, but I could be wrong.

The Bernie supporters are on board. The recalcitrant ones you are seeing on the floor are the dead enders.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Polls have shown that a higher % of Bernie supporters have said they'll vote Clinton at this point than Clinton supporters in 2008 said about Obama.

[Dr. Strangelove]

This is from 2008...and what ended up happening?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-half-of-clintons-supporters-wont-back-obama/

[hack]

Polls are all over the place. It's hard to know.

I would think that courting the Bernie supporters would be more important than appeasing the hard core party members, but I could be wrong. -- well, that's the whole thing in a nutshell. This entire business can be put behind them with a unifying convention. Wouldn't it be smarter to heed the optics and find some non-honorary actual way to quietly pave the way for DWS's exit in which there's actual benefit for her?

Fair enough, Froot. I see your point. I definitely feel like Liney's ``ignore it all'' approach is best. Artful platitudes are still platitudes.

[Hannibal]

Obama was a lot gentler to Hillary than Hillary and DWS apparently were to Bernie behind the scenes. No to mention Hillary's '08 supporters were probably much more rational and level-headed than Bernie's '16 supporters. With that said, I suspect that the election will be a pretty traditional one when all is said and done, with third party candidates getting an insignificant portion of the vote and very little crossover between parties.

[hack]

That's all probably true. I don't see the point of calling Bernie supporters irrational, though. They have just received very powerful evidence that they were right all along. Certainly they are fervent. And But telling them they have to vote for Hillary anyways or else they are selfish and hurting the country doesnt seem like constructive behaviour to me. If it's so important to vote for Hillary to avoid Trump, then maybe Hillary supporters need to be a little more respectful. And maybe Hillary should go EARN their votes. Expecting them as if it's some sort of birthright strikes me as a sense of entitlement that is more millenial than the actual millenials.

[lineygoblue]

I definitely feel like Liney's ``ignore it all'' approach is best. Artful platitudes are still platitudes.

And I wish I didn't have to feel that way. I would really like to get fired up about a candidate that I like, and I would really like to see the opposing convention show some real, tangible evidence that they are different, and better than the one that I'm supporting. I'd like to be able to take the campaign season and listen to BOTH candidates, then reach a conclusion based on what I've seen and heard.

But that's not happening. Its just more of the same old crap on both sides.

Come election day, more people will accept Hillary's crap instead of Trump's.

Sixteen years of Obama/Hillary.

Yippee.

[froot loops]

I think time has softened out the edges of that harsh 2008 primary campaign. I know Plouffe and Favreau have talked about how bitter it was. It gets forgotten about somewhat because Obama had clinched it somewhat early but the campaign continued in somewhat anonymity. That wasn't the case this year, primary coverage of both campaigns went much longer.

[hack]

I would really like to get fired up about a candidate that I like

That's certainly how people on the left feel about Bernie Sanders. I don't think he's a great candidate, but boy has he ever provided contrast. He's reminded people that you can run for president and still at the very least SEEM like you're not in Washington for your own enrichment, and that you really believe in your policies. Without him reminding us of what it should be like, I think most progressives would be gleefully lining up to vote in the first female president and it would be all over already.

(Then again Obama did the same in '08. He generated a real belief. Which says more about Washington than Obama, and explains a lot of about the desire for outsiders.)

[Ghengis Jon]

Considering how much attention is/was pad to emotional issues like BLM, Travon Martin, etc, why hasn't there been a #NoMoreBS started? A national campaign where voters pledge to vote for anybody (doesn't matter who) EXCEPT Clinton or Trump. If something like that actually took hold, there might be a real chance for change.

I know, I know, morons will be morons and they'll vote for a party rather than a candidate (which is the real problem with the electorate). If this election were between Stalin and Hitler, those two would still be the top two vote getters if they were members of the current Big Two.

One of the smartest people I know is the stupidest voter. He's appalled that I'm either voting 3rd party or write-in. Despite two doctorates and an IQ hovering around 180, "I know Trump is an a-hole, is against everything I'm for and for everything I'm against, I'm voting for him. He's a Republican. It wouldn't matter if Jesus Christ was running as a Democrat."

This indicates to me that we desperately need both parties to implode. Hopefully the GOP will collapse after Trump gets routed. Even more hopefully, Hillary will be the first sitting President to lose a primary and a Pelosi/Boxer ticket will have a similar effect on the Democratic Party that Trump has on the GOP.

Or maybe voters should be required to correctly state half a dozen positions/policies their candidate espouses or they are not allowed to vote.

Or make me King.

[froot loops]

I think you are being over optimistic if you think an implosion of both parties would bring something better. The issues are still there. You have very right to vote 3rd party or write in, but those candidates have the luxury of not having to govern, they sound a hell of a lot better when you don't have to put those ideas into practice.

[hack]

I think a third party would be great, and so would just a general slash/burn approach in the long run, despire some short-term chaos. But there are certainly other issues. Get the money out and shrink defense contracting and the two-party system looks much better. Do the reverse and those problems are still big problems.