The Berners may be irritating about the NY primary results, but consider how much worse things would be if the results came in on a day other than 4/20.
A brief reenactment of what would happen if it were on literally any other day -
I literally can't even with the Clinton hate anymore. People are foaming at the mouth. I've heard Democrat voters complain about her email scandal
With repeated insistence that she's being investigated by the FBI so MUST have done something wrong - despite that she's not, and multiple investigations have failed to find any wrongdoing.
That's a crazy old conspiracy theory that's been going on for years, the supposed bodycount of people she's had killed is hovering around 200, last I checked. Basically, anyone she's ever spoken to, interacted with, or met eyes with for a moment across a crowded room who has died, they're accusing her of murdering.
And when Bernie does something that's against their values - voting to fund wars, backing the F-35 program, taking money from union-busting corporations, taking money from Clinton's PACs, voting for the crime bill, voting against gun control, etc, etc - there's always an out, always an excuse, always a signed free pass sitting on the table, waiting to have the offense written in.
The Author, Walter Bragman, has written a few articles for Paste before, 11 of the 16 being open attacks on Hillary, four being openly pro-bernie articles(two of which are pretending Berniebros don't exist and Defending the "Bernie or Bust" crowd), and the neat cherry on top, a lengthy defense of Trump, that basically wavers between "Trump is actually the best Candidate other than Bernie" and "He's as bad as Hillary, but at least he's not Hillary."
He's also got one on Real Clear Politics(Which is just attacking Hillary), four on Salon(Three of which are just attacking Hillary, one of which is a lazy re-write of his RCP article, and one arguing the case that if Not Bernie, you should give the presidency to the Republicans), and a bunch on Huffpo that range between that real reddit-y quasi-right-wing Capital-A Atheism, telling off BLM(When they criticized Bernie), bigging up Bernie, and attacking hillary.
So, in short, A BernieBro only pausing from attacks on Hillary to shout at anyone who isn't 100% behind Bernie, and to occasionally tell us "You know, Trump isn't that bad guys, really."
Yea, Churba, thanks for doing that homework, someone posted that on my page when I posted a politifact and I was wondering about that.
First(but far from the last) place I saw it, in fact.
Needless to say, he's talking bollocks, on all but one point - they have covered her more, but most of that coverage has been the usual Fact-checker, which she's been doing no better than Sanders, in fact as a rough-and-ready look at it, I'd say he's faring slightly better with them.
And of course, he brings forward no evidence whatsoever of editorial meddling, he just does the usual conspiracy tactic of drawing connections that don't mean much, which should be an enormous red flag.
I mean, she was Secretary of State. I pretty much assume a certain amount of killing with that position, but I also assume she didnt do any more of it than most people in that position do.
I mean, she was Secretary of State. I pretty much assume a certain amount of killing with that position, but I also assume she didnt do any more of it than most people in that position do.
Most of those aren't even at times that Clinton could've had people killed. Gary Webb probably was killed by the CIA, but what connection would she have had in 2004 to be behind that?
aThe issue of open vs closed primaries is a different one. I actually keep going back and forth on it. The Democratic Party has every right to limit who can vote for their own nominee. People seem to forget that the Democratic and Republican Parties are private organizations. They aren't part of the government. There is nothing stopping someone from forming their own party (even if I personally think that's mostly futile). I think regardless of whether NY has an open or closed primary, if the cut off dates were more reasonable, this issue would mostly go away.
The fact that the two parties are not a de jure part of government is a poor excuse when they are able to maintain a system that enshrines their de facto rule.
The Democratic and Republican parties are not part of government in the same way that the Jim Crow literacy tests and poll taxes were not explicit government-sponsored racism.
Most of those aren't even at times that Clinton could've had people killed. Gary Webb probably was killed by the CIA, but what connection would she have had in 2004 to be behind that?
Pretty much nothing.
And suprisingly, the evidence upon examination points more to suicide, than a targeted killing. Most people focus on the whole "Two self-inflicted gunshot wounds" thing(which is highly unusual, though far from impossible - the highest number of self-inflicted gunshots recorded in a suicide was four), and declare it an assassination.
What they forget about is that his life, at that point, had basically completely fallen to pieces, and most of the people that knew him, and how he was acting in his final weeks, had no doubts that it was suicide. He was a man in deep financial trouble, with a career in shambles(while he was responsible for the "Dark Alliance" series, by the time of his death, it was pretty resoundingly criticized, with even the original publisher backing away from the story) and reputation that was worse(as you'd expect of a journo who'd gone all-in on a big, scandalous story but didn't end up having the evidence to prove it, and nearly sunk a paper singlehandedly).
He was stuck doing mostly small-time salary investigation work with the occasional freelance piece - and he was never trusted when he did anything bigger. He never regained even a fraction of his original credibility. His marriage had fallen apart, he had substance abuse problems, just a few weeks before he'd had to sell his family home because he couldn't afford the mortgage anymore.
The Democratic and Republican parties are not part of government in the same way that the Jim Crow literacy tests and poll taxes were not explicit government-sponsored racism.
This is pretty much the most compelling argument I have in favor of open primaries.
While it is technically true that the two major parties are private entities, and it is technically true that anyone could run as a third-party candidate or start their own political party, the practical reality is that it's pretty much impossible without one of the existing parties. Unless you're fabulously wealthy, but that level of wealth transcends politics anyhow.
We ultimately only pay lip service to the notion that the two major parties are private entities. They are, in all effect, government agencies responsible for finding and supporting candidates for government positions.
Yep, that's my one and only issue with closed primaries. When there is an "Independent" primary that produces candidates with a viable chance to win major elections without a private monstrosity behind them, then I will support closed primaries. Until then, the idea that they are private clubs with no actual government function is total bullshit.
As I wrote earlier, I keep going back and forth on open vs closed primaries. And, like I wrote above, the issue kind of becomes moot if you have shorter cut off times to register.
My one real concern with open primaries is strategic voting. Moving from NY to VA, for the first time in my life, I voted in an open primary and could choose which primary to participate in. I got advice from all kinds of people about who I should vote for. Some people told me to vote for Trump because he would be crushed in the General Election. Some people told me to vote for Kasich to prevent Trump or Cruz from winning the Republican nomination. In the end, I voted for the candidate that I want to win the general election and become president.
While there's nothing wrong with strategic voting per se, it just felt... dirty. I consider voting to be an almost a sacred duty. It's a sign and a responsibility of an engaged citizen. Personally, I think that people should vote for whom they want, not to manipulate the system. Open primaries encourage strategic voting. It doesn't quite corrupt the act of voting, but it certainly drags it through the mud a bit.
Closed primaries are similarly subject to strategic voting: you are strongly incentivized to vote for someone who will beat the other party's nominee rather than someone you would actually prefer.
There are mathematical theorems that say all sane voting systems exhibit "tactical voting" and all have disadvantages of one kind or another.
However, primary systems like those in the US, whether open or closed, are among the worst with regards to many of the relevant criteria.
Also not even that, say the Democratic primary is all but over, suddenly you still can vote in the Republican primary for the guy you want to lose. Probably one of the reasons that a lot of the later primaries are closed and the early ones are open. It's unusual to have a competitive race in both primaries this late in the season, this "Discourages" tactical voting.
The true answer is a Jungle primary (I.E. One primary for everyone in the state with everyone on it ) and you take the first 2 or 3 vote earners into the general and voting that allows for a Second choice, so if your first choice is eliminated your second vote goes to your second pick in the general.
I wonder who the Republican nominees for President will be in 2020. At the rate they are going, I expect to see the owner of Papa John's and Martin Shkreli campaigning.
Comments
And when Bernie does something that's against their values - voting to fund wars, backing the F-35 program, taking money from union-busting corporations, taking money from Clinton's PACs, voting for the crime bill, voting against gun control, etc, etc - there's always an out, always an excuse, always a signed free pass sitting on the table, waiting to have the offense written in.
Also, RE: politifact links, this is what Sanders Supporters have been throwing out the last few days in response - Via Paste magazine, "Politifact Gives Clinton Significantly More Coverage Than It Gives Sanders, and Some of it is Dead Wrong". Basically, trying to build excuses for any rating for sanders on Politifact that's below "Mostly true."
The Author, Walter Bragman, has written a few articles for Paste before, 11 of the 16 being open attacks on Hillary, four being openly pro-bernie articles(two of which are pretending Berniebros don't exist and Defending the "Bernie or Bust" crowd), and the neat cherry on top, a lengthy defense of Trump, that basically wavers between "Trump is actually the best Candidate other than Bernie" and "He's as bad as Hillary, but at least he's not Hillary."
He's also got one on Real Clear Politics(Which is just attacking Hillary), four on Salon(Three of which are just attacking Hillary, one of which is a lazy re-write of his RCP article, and one arguing the case that if Not Bernie, you should give the presidency to the Republicans), and a bunch on Huffpo that range between that real reddit-y quasi-right-wing Capital-A Atheism, telling off BLM(When they criticized Bernie), bigging up Bernie, and attacking hillary.
So, in short, A BernieBro only pausing from attacks on Hillary to shout at anyone who isn't 100% behind Bernie, and to occasionally tell us "You know, Trump isn't that bad guys, really."
Needless to say, he's talking bollocks, on all but one point - they have covered her more, but most of that coverage has been the usual Fact-checker, which she's been doing no better than Sanders, in fact as a rough-and-ready look at it, I'd say he's faring slightly better with them.
And of course, he brings forward no evidence whatsoever of editorial meddling, he just does the usual conspiracy tactic of drawing connections that don't mean much, which should be an enormous red flag.
The Democratic and Republican parties are not part of government in the same way that the Jim Crow literacy tests and poll taxes were not explicit government-sponsored racism.
And suprisingly, the evidence upon examination points more to suicide, than a targeted killing. Most people focus on the whole "Two self-inflicted gunshot wounds" thing(which is highly unusual, though far from impossible - the highest number of self-inflicted gunshots recorded in a suicide was four), and declare it an assassination.
What they forget about is that his life, at that point, had basically completely fallen to pieces, and most of the people that knew him, and how he was acting in his final weeks, had no doubts that it was suicide. He was a man in deep financial trouble, with a career in shambles(while he was responsible for the "Dark Alliance" series, by the time of his death, it was pretty resoundingly criticized, with even the original publisher backing away from the story) and reputation that was worse(as you'd expect of a journo who'd gone all-in on a big, scandalous story but didn't end up having the evidence to prove it, and nearly sunk a paper singlehandedly).
He was stuck doing mostly small-time salary investigation work with the occasional freelance piece - and he was never trusted when he did anything bigger. He never regained even a fraction of his original credibility. His marriage had fallen apart, he had substance abuse problems, just a few weeks before he'd had to sell his family home because he couldn't afford the mortgage anymore.
While it is technically true that the two major parties are private entities, and it is technically true that anyone could run as a third-party candidate or start their own political party, the practical reality is that it's pretty much impossible without one of the existing parties. Unless you're fabulously wealthy, but that level of wealth transcends politics anyhow.
We ultimately only pay lip service to the notion that the two major parties are private entities. They are, in all effect, government agencies responsible for finding and supporting candidates for government positions.
My one real concern with open primaries is strategic voting. Moving from NY to VA, for the first time in my life, I voted in an open primary and could choose which primary to participate in. I got advice from all kinds of people about who I should vote for. Some people told me to vote for Trump because he would be crushed in the General Election. Some people told me to vote for Kasich to prevent Trump or Cruz from winning the Republican nomination. In the end, I voted for the candidate that I want to win the general election and become president.
While there's nothing wrong with strategic voting per se, it just felt... dirty. I consider voting to be an almost a sacred duty. It's a sign and a responsibility of an engaged citizen. Personally, I think that people should vote for whom they want, not to manipulate the system. Open primaries encourage strategic voting. It doesn't quite corrupt the act of voting, but it certainly drags it through the mud a bit.
There are mathematical theorems that say all sane voting systems exhibit "tactical voting" and all have disadvantages of one kind or another.
However, primary systems like those in the US, whether open or closed, are among the worst with regards to many of the relevant criteria.
The true answer is a Jungle primary (I.E. One primary for everyone in the state with everyone on it ) and you take the first 2 or 3 vote earners into the general and voting that allows for a Second choice, so if your first choice is eliminated your second vote goes to your second pick in the general.
2020 started in 2014.
If Clinton could make eye contact with someone and make them die, her mutant power would be wasted as president.
Not sure what the Sanders Campaign is thinking.