2016 Election Thread (My God Kill Me Now)

[Arthur Dent]

I suspect we'll get a frosty Ted Kennedy 1980 convention type of speech.

Have you listened to that speech? It's a good one. A main thrust of it is dedicated to pointing to the absurd hypocrisy of the rhetoric of the Reagan Right, rhetoric that remains and has intensified as the core of the modern conservative orthodoxy into the present. A lot of good stuff, actually.

The 1980 Republican convention was awash with crocodile tears for our economic distress, but it is by their long record and not their recent words that you shall know them.

The same Republicans who are talking about the crisis of unemployment have nominated a man who once said, and I quote, "Unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders." And that nominee is no friend of labor.

The same Republicans who are talking about the problems of the inner cities have nominated a man who said, and I quote, "I have included in my morning and evening prayers every day the prayer that the Federal Government not bail out New York." And that nominee is no friend of this city and our great urban centers across this nation.

The same Republicans who are talking about security for the elderly have nominated a man who said just four years ago that "Participation in social security should be made voluntary." And that nominee is no friend of the senior citizens of this nation.

The same Republicans who are talking about preserving the environment have nominated a man who last year made the preposterous statement, and I quote, "Eighty percent of our air pollution comes from plants and trees." And that nominee is no friend of the environment.

And the same Republicans who are invoking Franklin Roosevelt have nominated a man who said in 1976, and these are his exact words, "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." And that nominee whose name is Ronald Reagan has no right to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The great adventures which our opponents offer is a voyage into the past. Progress is our heritage, not theirs. What is right for us as Democrats is also the right way for Democrats to win.

The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue. It is surely correct that we cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, but it is also correct that we dare not throw out our national problems onto a scrap heap of inattention and indifference. The poor may be out of political fashion, but they are not without human needs. The middle class may be angry, but they have not lost the dream that all Americans can advance together.

Appalling, I tell you.

[Schlich]

He has emphatically said that it is of the utmost importance that a Reublican does not win the white house, and he will do everything in his power to make sure of it. There's no reason not to believe him when he says that, and he's got the endorsement track record to prove it. But I'm not going to be surprised when an endorsement doesn't come her way. She doesn't need it.

I suspect we'll get a frosty Ted Kennedy 1980 convention type of speech. My earlier "taking the ball" comments were hyperbolic. I'm honestly really shocked by his qualified comments, so at this point it wouldn't surprise me.

I'll repeat: The Hillary Victory fund is sketchy a.f. and I honestly think it's meaningless regardless.

She's also fundraising directly for the DNC and state parties:

Hillary Clinton raised about $29.5 million for her primary campaign during March. That amount brings the first quarter total to nearly $75 million raised for the primary, beating the campaign’s goal of $50 million by about 50 percent. [Hillary For America] begins April with nearly $29 million on hand.

Clinton raised an additional $6.1 million for the DNC and state parties during the month of March, bringing the total for the quarter to about $15 million.

Link


Bernie: ziltch

Those figures are from the Hillary Victory Fund from my understanding. Here's why it's sketchy: 1 2 3

I and who knows how many others have donated a ton of money to down-ballot candidates this election cycle and I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that I wouldn't have if Bernie hadn't gotten me involved, so there's that. Nothing's is black and white here, and I think it's disingenuous and borderline exploitative for Hillary to be using this as a line of attack. Bottom line is that if this was just about down ballot candidates then she wouldn't have to rely on the loopholes that have allowed the HVF to exist, and she'd be making those direct donations that you falsely alluded to. It's never been a primary candidate's responsibility to help with down-ballot races this early, has it? Plus, you know, super PAC advantages and all.

[Michael]

I suspect we'll get a frosty Ted Kennedy 1980 convention type of speech.

Have you listened to that speech? It's a good one. A main thrust of it is dedicated to pointing to the absurd hypocrisy of the rhetoric of the Reagan Right, rhetoric that remains and has intensified as the core of the modern conservative orthodoxy into the present. A lot of good stuff, actually.

It was a good speech but not a ringing endorsement. It was a frosty convention.

Those figures are from the Hillary Victory Fund from my understanding. Here's why it's sketchy: 1 2 3

I and who knows how many others have donated a ton of money to down-ballot candidates this election cycle and I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that I wouldn't have if Bernie hadn't gotten me involved, so there's that. Nothing's is black and white here, and I think it's disingenuous and borderline exploitative for Hillary to be using this as a line of attack. Bottom line is that if this was just about down ballot candidates then she wouldn't have to rely on the loopholes that have allowed the HVF to exist, and she'd be making those direct donations that you falsely alluded to. It's never been a primary candidate's responsibility to help with down-ballot races this early, has it? Plus, you know, super PAC advantages and all.

Interesting. Thanks! I'll have to do through this tomorrow. I'm recovering from the flu and tired.

[Schlich]

edit -

I should also add Hillary has a long history of doing this. From HillPac in 06:

Two congressmen trying to make it to the Senate also got boosts from Clinton. Rep. Bernie Sanders, who is running for the seat held by retiring Vermont lawmaker Jim Jeffords, received $10,000, as did Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee, who is campaigning for the seat being vacated by Majority Leader Bill Frist. Newly minted Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey also got $10,000.

Link

Ha, that's a good find.

Doesn't help fight the argument that Hillary has bought all of her support so far though

[Michael]

I thought that was a hilarious little nugget. I was laughing as I posted it and it wasn't intended to be a serious point.

nite y'all

[pioneer98]

Getting caught up.....Raising a bunch of money for downticket candidates doesn't matter to Bernie voters. To them, this is part of the problem. The money comes from all these sources with different motives and makes these politicians at least somewhat beholden from an early stage of their careers. I also don't know how you ever fix it. That thing I read that showed how so many candidates come from think tanks and other sources that get funded by the same people. They are being funded before they are even candidates. Special interest money is like the fuel of our entire political system.

Hillary might not have many instances where you can show she changed her stance on an issue directly due to a bribe or a political contribution. But what Hillary has in spades are conflicts of interest. Again, a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean she acted in a way where she was influenced by money. It just means she had the opportunity to do so if she felt like it. Did she feel like it? Since we don't know we are left here debating it. Conflicts of interest are bad. I'd be stunned if Hillary never once was swayed by money. At the bare minimum, some of her decisions just happened to benefit her and Bill personally, which just looks bad.

Regarding the state level, I agree it seems like Democrats don't even care much about it. The state level also is where I can provide many examples where money did in fact sway legislation directly. This is why it's hard to believe people running for national office aren't affected the same way. Why would these people spend all these billions if they got nothing out of it? Just to be cool I guess?

In Iowa, our legislature just passed a law that lets people carry loaded guns on snowmobiles and ATV's. This is a follow up to the law that lets kids shoot guns. I'm not sure what tough issue our legislature will take on next - maybe it will be to allow guns in classrooms, or guns on boats, or maybe they will come up with a totally new place where guns should be. I'm so glad our state legislators are working on all these critcal issues out of the goodness of their heart.

[Fat Strat]

In some ways I think it's the nature of the national Democratic party to be less focused on what's happening in states and local government. Their ideology lends itself to more centralized federal control & influence and the more "to the left" you get, the stronger that federal control needs to be.

Look at Bernie - does he have any platform issue where he's saying "the states should decide that"? I really don't know, but I can't think of any. In a socialistic ideology, the purpose of state and local governments is to execute the policies passed by the altruistic federal leadership. (That's an oversimplification, obviously.)

[Jocephus]

man, cruz is gonna get so battered in ny

[MrSaigon]

It just seems really doubtful that where margins are more important than anything else that political contributions don't produce returns. Seems like a spreadsheet trying to quantify it should have been leaked by now.

Only things like UBS that thrill posted about are really clear to be seen. And also, very disgusting. And also, exactly what Eric Holder has done. And also, the path between the Clinton portions of the Beltway to Wall St. is very well beaten. When Bernie smears Hillary by calling Wall St. her 'buddies' he's not just being cute. Many of them graduated from Clinton U.

[Freed Roger]

Regarding the state level, I agree it seems like Democrats don't even care much about it. The state level also is where I can provide many examples where money did in fact sway legislation directly. This is why it's hard to believe people running for national office aren't affected the same way. Why would these people spend all these billions if they got nothing out of it? Just to be cool I guess?

In Iowa, our legislature just passed a law that lets people carry loaded guns on snowmobiles and ATV's. This is a follow up to the law that lets kids shoot guns. .

I guess I shouldn't blame the DNC for the entirety of their weak concern for state level stupidity as in your 2d paragraph (they are on [expletive] you vendetta-IMO.) People are stupid and can hardly be helped. Thus, states are easy pickens for wealthy people and special interests to own (they can decide whichever party to be the conduit-currently it is the GOP-obviously because of their phony pro-business, pro-family values nonsense).

Wisconsin is perfect example of this. They go blue in national elections, but red at the state level. when it's national level, people like a more friendly front, but on the state level -with less people paying attention to it -it's all whips and chains conservatism.