Elections 2016 Democratic/GOP Super Tuesday Primary Thread

[SouthoftheAndes]

Uh, actually yeah.

Go look at the avg IQs in the states Clinton won then compare with the states Sanders won. Kinda funny that Sanders is the biggest champion of helping poor and dumb people, yet they're too poor and dumb to see beyond the Clinton campaign that is 75% funded by people who use and abuse those very same poor and dumb people.

Irony, ignorance, naivety, and stupidity are ridiculously strong in this election. You exposed yourself to which you're a part of lmao

Okay so what do you have to say about the fact that more educated voters support Clinton? And that more millionaires, billionaires, and legit intellectuals support Clinton? What about the fact that more elected officials across America (regardless of ideological outlook) favor Clinton more than Sanders? Remember Iowa and the data showing that more educated voters and those who earned above $100,000 a year favored Clinton more than Sanders?

Well isn't income a 'huge' measure of success among the common person? What does it then say that the innovators, and most proven and largely successful people in this country (and other countries) have more favorable things to say about Clinton than Sanders?

Typically fools like yourself reply to these facts with some conspiracy about how all the "rich" and all the educated proven economists and top experts are all "bought and paid for" or are "corrupt". I find it interesting how Bernie fans love to tout Robert Reich among a few other politicians and 'proven people' as proof that Bernie appeals to 'legit authors of authority'. And yet it is Bernie fans who so often bash Clinton for having more support from more intellectuals and people who have actually proven their worth in either the fields of finance, economics, science, government, technology or media.



In other words there are a lot of hypocrites. You are all so happy to spread the belief that more 'educated' and 'proven and authoritative people/experts support Bernie" and YET when it is Clinton who has more support from intellectuals, the educated, the hardworking, minorities, AND those who created successful businesses, created thousands of jobs, and invented things you all turn silent and then proceed to bash Clinton and downplay the success of the innovators of Silicon Valley, among others.

 

[Renard]

Okay so what do you have to say about the fact that more educated voters support Clinton? And that more millionaires, billionaires, and legit intellectuals support Clinton? What about the fact that more elected officials across America (regardless of ideological outlook) favor Clinton more than Sanders? Remember Iowa and the data showing that more educated voters and those who earned above $100,000 a year favored Clinton more than Sanders?

Well isn't income a 'huge' measure of success among the common person? What does it then say that the innovators, and most proven and largely successful people in this country (and other countries) have more favorable things to say about Clinton than Sanders?

Typically fools like yourself reply to these facts with some conspiracy about how all the "rich" and all the educated proven economists and top experts are all "bought and paid for" or are "corrupt". I find it interesting how Bernie fans love to tout Robert Reich among a few other politicians and 'proven people' as proof that Bernie appeals to 'legit authors of authority' and yet it is Bernie fans who so often bash Clinton for having more support from more intellectuals, and people who have actually proven their worth in either the fields of finance, economics, science, government, technology or media.



In other words there are a lot of hypocrites. You are all so happy to spread the belief that more 'educated' and 'proven and authoritative people/experts support Bernie" and YET when it is Clinton who has more support from intellectuals, the educated, the hardworking, minorities, AND those who created successful businesses, created thousands of jobs, and invented things you all turn silent and then proceed to bash Clinton and downplay the success of the innovators of Silicon Valley, among others.

Have you seen Sanders' tax plan? Wealthy democrats recoil in horror and run to Clinton, of course. You don't need a conspiracy to explain it, it's called voting in your own interest.

 

[xcvbn]

Okay so what do you have to say about the fact that more educated voters support Clinton? And that more millionaires, billionaires, and legit intellectuals support Clinton? What about the fact that more elected officials across America (regardless of ideological outlook) favor Clinton more than Sanders? Remember Iowa and the data showing that more educated voters and those who earned above $100,000 a year favored Clinton more than Sanders?

Well isn't income a 'huge' measure of success among the common person? What does it then say that the innovators, and most proven and largely successful people in this country (and other countries) have more favorable things to say about Clinton than Sanders?

Typically fools like yourself reply to these facts with some conspiracy about how all the "rich" and all the educated proven economists and top experts are all "bought and paid for" or are "corrupt". I find it interesting how Bernie fans love to tout Robert Reich among a few other politicians and 'proven people' as proof that Bernie appeals to 'legit authors of authority' and yet it is Bernie fans who so often bash Clinton for having more support from more intellectuals, and people who have actually proven their worth in either the fields of finance, economics, science, government, technology or media.



In other words there are a lot of hypocrites. You are all so happy to spread the belief that more 'educated' and 'proven and authoritative people/experts support Bernie" and YET when it is Clinton who has more support from intellectuals, the educated, the hardworking, minorities, AND those who created successful businesses, created thousands of jobs, and invented things you all turn silent and then proceed to bash Clinton and downplay the success of the innovators of Silicon Valley, among others.

Have you listened to the woman speak? And have you considered that they support her because 1. They're liberals and 2. They'd rather not lose their subsidies, tax breaks, and then pay a significant percentage more in taxes under Bernie than Clinton?

The poor peons supporting that vile woman don't know shit from apple-butter. At the very least we can agree how interesting it is that Bernie wins relatively large states in Colorado and Minnesota, ties in Massachusetts, then gets trounced 2/3-1 in backwards shitholes like Alabama and energy tycoon laden Texas. I'll say she's clearly running the better campaign and that if Bernie would swing his dick and shove it down the dumb old broads throat on email, her wall street love-fest, and being a failure at Senator and Sec of State he is likely neck-n-neck with her.

The most hilarious part in all of this is that if Bernie runs as an independent, we get a Republican president guaranfuckingteed.

Anyway, just busting your balls man. We'll see how things go.

 

[Gandhi]

Okay, a lot of people were wrong about the crime thing. Sanders wasn't. And not for fully ideological reasons, either. He cited the same issues then that people are up in arms about now. Its foresight and judgement and examining an issue as opposed to reacting to a problem with a knee jerk reaction. I don't know where you're going with the other stuff (nationalizing strategic industries, etc).

I disagree that he has the wrong message. Nobody else is talking about law enforcement and BLM the way Sanders is.
And, as Adolph Reed and Cornel West have attested to, Sanders platform is a laundry list of black issues.
How is Hillary Clinton addressing race differently than Sanders?

As for missing your point, are you suggesting that Sanders is using dog whistle racism to attract black voters?

The "they are misinformed" is a dangerous argument if you frame it as the only reason a demographic votes more for one candidate than another. Otherwise, it's not only a legit criticism (of any demographic, not just blacks) its almost certainly a factor for Clinton winning that demographic by such enormous margins.

And please don't strawman me with "I know whats best for the black man" or "blacks are misinformed". That is not my argument, and I've been clear on that from the beginning.

No need to get testy, how I am a straw manning you? Why is 10 black guys voting Hilary possibly due to the issues and experience but 100 due to being uninformed? I really don't get how his quantitative argument proves anything.

It's telling that Bernie lost the black vote even in his own state.

No, again, I am saying its a bad analogy to the Fox News phenomenon, right wingers use dog whistle to manipulate poorwhites, Clinton is using what exactly to manipulate poor blacks?

I'll get to the rest later peace

 

[Gandhi]

You are not black are you? So why acting like you know it all and know how they should vote.

Keep pretending that Clinton can't get things done.

Crime bill made sense even black leaders where for it.

3 strikes is an abortion of a bill

 

[Anung Un Rama]

No need to get testy, how I am a straw manning you? Why is 10 black guys voting Hilary possibly due to the issues and experience but 100 due to being uninformed? I really don't get how his quantitative argument proves anything.

It's telling that Bernie lost the black vote even in his own state.

No, again, I am saying its a bad analogy to the Fox News phenomenon, right wingers use dog whistle to manipulate poorwhites, Clinton is using what exactly to manipulate poor blacks?

I'll get to the rest later peace

I gotta get to work, but I'm not being testy, I said "please" - I'm enjoying this conversation. But you are straw manning if your reading/portraying my post as "blacks are uninformed", and that I'm saying I know what's best for blacks. Also, I'm only saying low voter iq is a factor, not the whole story. I think I've been pretty clear on this.

 

[Gandhi]

I gotta get to work, but I'm not being testy, I said "please" - I'm enjoying this conversation. But you are straw manning if your reading/portraying my post as "blacks are uninformed", and that I'm saying I know what's best for blacks. Also, I'm only saying low voter iq is a factor, not the whole story. I think I've been pretty clear on this.

LOL ok fair enough you said please

As an aside I saw this today from the WSJ

"In an intriguing voting pattern on Super Tuesday that could provide clues to races to come, Republican businessman Donald Trump dominated in economically challenged cities while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attracted sizable support among Democrats in cities where incomes are relatively high, and unemployment is relatively low.

These results emerged from an analysis of early county-level voting results by The Wall Street Journal of 23 economically challenged cities based on median income and unemployment levels, as well as 34 cities whose economies are comparatively strong by those markers."

I find the argument strange that some are making in this thread (not attributing to Anung) that Hillary is getting votes from the poor because they are dumb and the rich because the are afraid of tax cuts. Either she appeals to the educated wealthy voters with high IQs or she does not. Also absent is any gimmick she using like race to bamboozle the poor, she is just Bernie light.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No need to get testy, how I am a straw manning you? Why is 10 black guys voting Hilary possibly due to the issues and experience but 100 due to being uninformed? I really don't get how his quantitative argument proves anything.

It's telling that Bernie lost the black vote even in his own state.

No, again, I am saying its a bad analogy to the Fox News phenomenon, right wingers use dog whistle to manipulate poorwhites, Clinton is using what exactly to manipulate poor blacks?

I'll get to the rest later peace

If people are really interested, this looks like a good start:



Almost all things I've mentioned (not in as much detail and not in those words, though).

 

[PolishHeadlock]

I don't understand why the crime bills of the 90s are this horrible thing. Crime was bad and trending upwards.

Since the crime bill crime took a sharp turn downwards.

You can argue that the crime bills went to far but did they not have any positive effects?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I don't understand why the crime bills of the 90s are this horrible thing. Crime was bad and trending upwards.

Since the crime bill crime took a sharp turn downwards.

You can argue that the crime bills went to far but did they not have any positive effects?

1. Lots of blacks were committing crimes.
2. Lots of blacks were going to jail.
3. ????????????????????????????????????

4. Racism.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

3 strikes is an abortion of a bill

Democrats support abortion.

 

[Sycho Sid]

If people are really interested, this looks like a good start:



Almost all things I've mentioned (not in as much detail and not in those words, though).

Thanks for this. It is a good read, especially his sources. For someone who was a child in the 90s, it is nice to have this perspective.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't understand why the crime bills of the 90s are this horrible thing. Crime was bad and trending upwards.

Since the crime bill crime took a sharp turn downwards.

You can argue that the crime bills went to far but did they not have any positive effects?

As crime has receded as a concern, high incarceration rates have advanced. I think we definitely went too far, though the 1994 crime bill's contribution to that is *greatly* overstated.

 

[Madmick]

Was the past page of posts deleted?

No. You're probably got confused like I was between this thread and the other GOP thread Salad had up. I kept coming into the wrong thread.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

If people are really interested, this looks like a good start:



Almost all things I've mentioned (not in as much detail and not in those words, though).

But both of these explanations have the assumption that Clinton was the default choice and Sanders had to prove himself. Kind of a Clinton until proven otherwise scenario. I mean, #2 is a "what have you done for me lately?" thing. But of course for Clinton a more appropriate question would be, "What have you done for me, ever?"

And this all just boils down to name recognition and party affiliation. Hillary and Bill are THE faces of the Democrats in the past quarter century so Hillary was the default choice (just like she was in 2008) and it was up Bernie to snatch it away from her. 6-9 months of campaigning just didn't cut it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But both of these explanations have the assumption that Clinton was the default choice and Sanders had to prove himself. Kind of a Clinton until proven otherwise scenario. I mean, #2 is a "what have you done for me lately?" thing. But of course for Clinton a more appropriate question would be, "What have you done for me, ever?"

And this all just boils down to name recognition and party affiliation. Hillary and Bill are THE faces of the Democrats in the past quarter century so Hillary was the default choice (just like she was in 2008) and it was up Bernie to snatch it away from her. 6-9 months of campaigning just didn't cut it.

Doesn't look like it quoted right. There were actually five points. Let me try to make it a link (just delete the spaces).

https:// np.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/472fj6/why_isnt_bernie_sanders_doing_well_with_black/d09sdaw

The points are that black voters are more pessimistic in general than white progressives, Sanders has not earned the black vote (what you talk about), Sanders' supporters have hurt him with racist attacks on blacks who didn't already support him, blacks tend to be moderate left, and the Clintons have put the work in to get the black vote (and the guy mentions something that gets overlooked a lot in discussions of the crime bill--blacks supported it at the time).

 

[ucunc156]

I only read the first paragraph, but it just seems silly to me. The guy says black panthers and MLK were socialist and they constantly get their dreams dashed. But what exactly is the argument that establishment types help them more than the socialist types they themselves named? I get being let down, I don't get choosing the more conservative option when 2 of the biggest groups/people for your advancement were socialist/more extreme.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I only read the first paragraph, but it just seems silly to me. The guy says black panthers and MLK were socialist and they constantly get their dreams dashed. But what exactly is the argument that establishment types help them more than the socialist types they themselves named? I get being let down, I don't get choosing the more conservative option when 2 of the biggest groups/people for your advancement were socialist/more extreme.

The first part just goes to pessimism and skepticism about bigger claims. Blacks have made progress in getting equal rights in America, but it's been slow and hard and met with incredible resistance. The message, "I'm gonna give you a pony," doesn't sell as well as, "I'm gonna fight like hell against people who want to stop you from being able to rent a pony."

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Doesn't look like it quoted right. There were actually five points. Let me try to make it a link (just delete the spaces).

https:// np.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/472fj6/why_isnt_bernie_sanders_doing_well_with_black/d09sdaw

The points are that black voters are more pessimistic in general than white progressives, Sanders has not earned the black vote (what you talk about), Sanders' supporters have hurt him with racist attacks on blacks who didn't already support him, blacks tend to be moderate left, and the Clintons have put the work in to get the black vote (and the guy mentions something that gets overlooked a lot in discussions of the crime bill--blacks supported it at the time).

I'm glad he mentioned #5 because that's still the biggest factor. It kinda envelops #2 as well. And yeah, blacks supported the crime bill- or at least didn't vocally oppose it- at the time and that's one of the reasons they hold Bill's administration so fondly.

#1 and #4 are non-issues, IMO.Ok, blacks aren't as socially liberal as liberal whites but Bernie and Hillary are in the same exact boat in this regard. If Bernie being secular, pro-gay, pro-marijuana legalization is too liberal, then Hillary's too liberal as well! Ok, maybe legalizing marijuana isn't big with Hillary but that's not even close to being a major issue.

Again, the major factor is the great regard blacks in general have for the Clintons. Only the realistic prospect of a giant historical achievement like having a black president in 2008 could derail that support. Bernie can't begin to compare.

 

[Gandhi]

Doesn't look like it quoted right. There were actually five points. Let me try to make it a link (just delete the spaces).

https:// np.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/472fj6/why_isnt_bernie_sanders_doing_well_with_black/d09sdaw

The points are that black voters are more pessimistic in general than white progressives, Sanders has not earned the black vote (what you talk about), Sanders' supporters have hurt him with racist attacks on blacks who didn't already support him, blacks tend to be moderate left, and the Clintons have put the work in to get the black vote (and the guy mentions something that gets overlooked a lot in discussions of the crime bill--blacks supported it at the time).☠☠Sst mm
Am
T r4(}/

Some of this I have already mentioned as well but it seems to get shrugged away. Blacks are generally more moderate, pessimistic and prefer pragmatism over ideological solutions.