Elections 2016 Democratic South Carolina Primary Thread

[panamaican]

I agree, which is why I said he needed to get his record out because Hillary is winning the recency effect. He needed that to be front and center of his southern strategy. It honestly baffles me why he didn't do this. Here's a man who got arrested fighting for civil rights and I've heard more from Ben Carson begging to be attacked in debates more than I have Sanders bringing up his record. Even if it was 40 years ago, it's more than anything Hillary has done, which should have been the knockout blow but Bernie won't do it because he doesn't want to run a "negative" campaign.

It's still 40 years ago. Given that the problems facing black America didn't just disappear and then reappear in the last 3-5 years, Bernie's lack of recent involvement is telling. Hillary may not have done much but she's at least been visible to those who track black related news. The first black PResident included her in his cabinet, it may not be much but it's certainly more than what Sanders can point to.

And frankly, getting arrested 40 years ago doesn't tell us anything about what he's doing re:modern problems. If the pro-Bernie crowd was even remotely pragmatic in evaluating that issue, they would realize that Hillary's, even minimal, presence on black matters will always carry more weight than someone who didn't even do that much or at least hasn't told us what he did.

A vetted acquaintance will always beat out a complete stranger. And in the last 25 years, what has Bernie done to transition from stranger to acquaintance? It's a serious question. What has he done for this generation?

 

[VivaRevolution]

He was railing against the war on drugs when it only affected black people or after the liberal college kids decided to say something about it. I did serious research into the sentencing guidelines back in law school, barely 10 years ago, Bernie's name never came up as authoring legislation or advocating for change. Sure, I might have missed it since I wasn't cataloguing every person who said something so correct me.

And please stop calling it the Jim Crow war on drugs. First and most importantly, it makes a mockery of actual Jim Crow legislation.

Second, it disregards the fact that until marijuana smokers started getting hit with draconian sentences, most people didn't give a fuck about the inefficiency of the war on drugs. The "war" started back in the 80's and no one said a thing when it was focused on the inner cities.

Where is Clinton's legislation for change? Bit of a straw-man there yes?

I didn't call it the Jim Crow war on Drug, Michelle Alexander did.

Let me state again, in 1988, Bernie Sanders supported Jesse Jackson for president. Can you show me one example of that kind of courage, and lack of political calculation to do what the candidate views as the right thing, in Clinton's entire career?

 

[Quipling]

Yeah, I think criminal justice is substantively her worst area. I think her hawkishness in regard to foreign policy is absolutely reprehensible, but voters don't care about random brown people in Timbuktu.

What is your rationale for supporting Clinton over Sanders?

Couple of reasons.

The biggest has probably been displays of competence on a wide-range of issues. I really value preperation and comprehensive knowledge, and Sanders has been comparatively disappointing. He's gotten better on this front, but he lost a number of points for me during the debates when he simply repeated dem orthodoxy and wound up messing up on some of the more nuanced issues. A particular issue that stood out was Climate Change, where he essentially repeated party dogma and actually saying statements that went significantly beyond what a climate scientist would say. She's generally been better on displaying comprehension to my mind. I also get personally irritated when people onetrack onto their particular issue, even when it isn't really the best response to a problem. I know for people who find that issue to be an exclusive priority it's gratifying, but the impression I get is that's an evasion onto issues the candidate feels more comfortable on.

Also, a number of the other points I had given Sanders on presumed insight evaporated when he discussed his rationale. The best example here was his vote on the Brady Bill. I was actually impressed by his opposition to holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed, since I thought it was a terrible use of liability to enact policy that cut against the way product liability should work. But he described it as a form of constituent representation, which was less impressive to me, since I felt both candidates had that down pretty well in any case. (As a former constituent of Clinton when she was Senator, I feel comfortable taking this position).

During an exchange with O'Malley related to gun control, he remarked to O'Malley that Martin's postions don't work nearly as well when you have to work with people with different beliefs, different backgrounds, and different needs. I thought it was an excellent and very truthful point, and it frankly buried O'Malley for me. The problem is it also cuts deeply against Sanders. A number of his positions on the economy have this same problem - they cater to low-skilled workers living in relatively affluent parts of the nation. A $15 minimum wage is entirely reasonable in many major cities and some of the wealthier states. Now, a federal minimum wage hike is long overdue, but a $15 target is a 50% increase over the historical average. Further, It would not function nearly as well in the poorer parts of the country. It'd be devastating to the agricultural industry - unless you really like the idea of driving even more exploitation of undocumented workers - and would stifle the already struggling economies of the most impovrished parts of the nation, like rural mississippi. Similarly, his more protectionist policies protect the manufacturing industry at the expense of consumers. It also would have an increasingly small effect - automation is increasingly taking over manufacture.

The last point is one of ideology v practicality. Sanders has some ideological positions that I'm not comfortable with. I don't think financial services are inherently fraudulent, which is a position he appears to have taken. And since a lot of his subsequent policies on this seem to flow from a view I see as flawed, I am concerned that they will be ineffectual or even aggravate actual problems because he will be trying to fix an industry I'm not sure he understands. Nor do I think that lobbying for specific interests is inherently corrupt (as a former employee of some left-wing groups that were involved in lobbying), which also seems to be a position he has taken. I do think corruption often takes the form of lobbying, but those are far apart.

 

[in the]

It's still 40 years ago. Given that the problems facing black America didn't just disappear and then reappear in the last 3-5 years, Bernie's lack of recent involvement is telling. Hillary may not have done much but she's at least been visible to those who track black related news. The first black PResident included her in his cabinet, it may not be much but it's certainly more than what Sanders can point to.

And frankly, getting arrested 40 years ago doesn't tell us anything about what he's doing re:modern problems. If the pro-Bernie crowd was even remotely pragmatic in evaluating that issue, they would realize that Hillary's, even minimal, presence on black matters will always carry more weight than someone who didn't even do that much or at least hasn't told us what he did.

A vetted acquaintance will always beat out a complete stranger. And in the last 25 years, what has Bernie done to transition from stranger to acquaintance? It's a serious question. What has he done for this generation?

I stopped following Bernie's campaign awhile back, so I just can't answer your questions. The fact he has refused to even address the issues you bring up is telling. A cursory Google search pulled up this, which is more than I've heard from his campaign since the start. I just don't understand why he isn't addressing the elephant in the room. Surely he has to know he won't win without black support.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Um, no. You can look through my posting history. I get into lots of good, substantive discussions. And look at yours. You respond to issue-based arguments with empty personal attacks. I'm really curious about what you get out of that.



If you're talking about the 1994 crime bill (signed by Bill Clinton, but whatever), that did track Dem positions at the time (obviously since it passed--and Sanders voted for it), and it was particularly popular among black Democrats. People have a hard time remembering how different America was at the time after the huge decline in crime since then. The effect of the bill on incarceration levels is also way overstated (you can't see any real effect in the numbers).

Welfare reform was clearly a mistake (contributing to an increase in deep poverty in America) even given what was known at the time, and that does go to my biggest difference with Clinton (in comparison to Sanders), which is that I'm less interested in creating a society where talented people can rise to positions of power regardless of their background than I am in completely eliminating poverty. That's why I've said before that the primary is a head vs. heart thing for me. I think Bernie's a good guy who shares my values to a greater extent than Clinton does, but she's way stronger on policy.

Ed: Here's Kevin Drum (from Mother Jones) on the crime bill:

Sanders voted for the crime bill for the violence against woman aspect. He was quite articulate about his concerns regarding the bills potential negative effect on minorities and the poor.

You've mentioned his vote many times, so maybe you weren't aware of his reasoning. I know you don't like videos, but here are his opinions on a 91 crime bill, the 94 crime bill, and the violence against woman aspect of the 94 crime bill:

 

[in the]

 

[in the]

 

[panamaican]

I stopped following Bernie's campaign awhile back, so I just can't answer your questions. The fact he has refused to even address the issues you bring up is telling. A cursory Google search pulled up this, which is more than I've heard from his campaign since the start. I just don't understand why he isn't addressing the elephant in the room. Surely he has to know he won't win without black support.

He's not addressing it because it hasn't been something his political life has focused on. It's a very good link but it's mostly about human rights and civil rights at the macro level. If he wants the black vote then he's going to have to speak to black specific problems.

This late in your political career, you have to be able to point to something concrete - speeches, authored legislation, even minimally consistent activism.

Black Democrats aren't quite as mindless as people generally make them out to be. They vote Dem because they're fairly confident that the GOP isn't just not interested in helping them but intentionally trying to hurt them (fair or not). But within the Democratic Party, you still have to secure them as your voting block and that means consistent advocacy, not just recent speeches or pointing to decades old action.

 

[panamaican]

Where is Clinton's legislation for change? Bit of a straw-man there yes?

I didn't call it the Jim Crow war on Drug, Michelle Alexander did.

Let me state again, in 1988, Bernie Sanders supported Jesse Jackson for president. Can you show me one example of that kind of courage, and lack of political calculation to do what the candidate views as the right thing, in Clinton's entire career?

Clinton doesn't need legislation for change, she served as the Secretary of State for an actual black President. The most politically powerful black person in the history of this country trusted her enough to put her in his Cabinet. Frankly, she doesn't need more than that to support the idea that she and black America are aligned ideologically. It doesn't matter if you disagree or I disagree - she held the post. So, it's not a strawman to ask what Sanders has done to even out that impression.

I didn't realize Michelle Alexander was posting under your account. Or put another way - you're the one typing. Take some personal responsibility, lol.

So what that he supported Jesse Jackson? Jesse Jackson supported the Clintons. Do you see where that leads us?

And I don't need to show you anything that the Clinton's did - they've had black Democratic support for decades - clearly black people in the Democratic party have seen enough to make them support her over the GOP. What you need to do, and are seemingly incapable of accomplishing, is to show what Bernie has done since Bill Clinton's first term that shows his affinity for black issues over that of Hillary Clinton.

But since you won't do your own homework (Which is really the worst part of these "Bernie loves black people" posts - the idea that some candidate is good for black people without actually pointing to something concrete politically to support it.):
http://www.theroot.com/articles/pol...ry_clinton_who_s_better_for_black_voters.html

 

[Jack V Savage]

You've mentioned his vote many times, so maybe you weren't aware of his reasoning. I know you don't like videos, but here are his opinions on a 91 crime bill, the 94 crime bill, and the violence against woman aspect of the 94 crime bill:

I have never before mentioned his vote. I wasn't even aware of it until very recently. But I get it. My point is that support for the bill was a mainstream liberal position at the time.

 

[in the]

He's not addressing it because it hasn't been something his political life has focused on. It's a very good link but it's mostly about human rights and civil rights at the macro level. If he wants the black vote then he's going to have to speak to black specific problems.

This late in your political career, you have to be able to point to something concrete - speeches, authored legislation, even minimally consistent activism.

Black Democrats aren't quite as mindless as people generally make them out to be. They vote Dem because they're fairly confident that the GOP isn't just not interested in helping them but intentionally trying to hurt them (fair or not). But within the Democratic Party, you still have to secure them as your voting block and that means consistent advocacy, not just recent speeches or pointing to decades old action.

He doesn't have much to speak about in terms of getting any type of legislation passed, much less for the black community. Yet what he did was concrete, maybe not recent enough for some people's liking, but substantial nonetheless. And I'm not making out black Democrats as being mindless. I'm making them out to be loyal to those who have supported their causes, especially as long as Bernie has.

 

[panamaican]

He doesn't have much to speak about in terms of getting any type of legislation passed, much less for the black community. Yet what he did was concrete, maybe not recent enough for some people's liking, but substantial nonetheless. And I'm not making out black Democrats as being mindless. I'm making them out to be loyal to those who have supported their causes, especially as long as Bernie has.

I didn't mean to imply that you were making them out as mindless. It's just a general way of describing them that frequently arises. As a result, I don't think people really think through how that voting block reaches it's decisions. I should have made the general nature of my comment more clear.

I do think recency is extremely important in selecting modern candidates. As the issues change, a proponent of something even 20 years might no longer be in touch with what is needed today. We've seen similar changes in everything ranging from the war on drugs to immigration legislation.

IMO, a viable candidate needs to show that they are currently in touch with the specific issues they want voter support on.

 

[in the]

I didn't mean to imply that you were making them out as mindless. It's just a general way of describing them that frequently arises. As a result, I don't think people really think through how that voting block reaches it's decisions. I should have made the general nature of my comment more clear.

I do think recency is extremely important in selecting modern candidates. As the issues change, a proponent of something even 20 years might no longer be in touch with what is needed today. We've seen similar changes in everything ranging from the war on drugs to immigration legislation.

IMO, a viable candidate needs to show that they are currently in touch with the specific issues they want voter support on.

Which, I have to say, Bernie's voting record on bills in the 90s that disproportionately affected blacks is strong in their favor. But he's not making this case, so he's going to lose.

 

[panamaican]

Which, I have to say, Bernie's voting record on bills in the 90s that disproportionately affected blacks is strong in their favor. But he's not making this case, so he's going to lose.

Which is interesting because I don't see it that way. Not unless he was truly voting against the Democratic grain and standing up and standing out for things that others were silent on.

It's like saying that a Republican that voted against raising taxes deserves extra commendation for his conservative-ness. If most of the people in your party are doing/saying the exact same thing that you are, you're not going to get brownie points for it.

Which is the point I'm usually making about Sanders and the black vote. Not that Sanders has been indifferent to black issues but that he hasn't done anything to distinguish himself as a proponent of said issues in the last 25 years or so. At least, nothing that I'm aware of and no one is pointing me to anything. Instead, he's done what all of the Democrats have been doing for years on end and his supporters want to treat it as it's unique.

Someone mentioned Jesse Jackson earlier...do you know how many Democrats supported Jesse Jackson's run for the nomination? Jesse Jackson wasn't out there by himself with no support but that of other black people. So simply endorsing Jackson for President wouldn't make someone a special kind of Democrat. It would them part of the rank and file.

 

[in the]

Which is interesting because I don't see it that way. Not unless he was truly voting against the Democratic grain and standing up and standing out for things that others were silent on.

It's like saying that a Republican that voted against raising taxes deserves extra commendation for his conservative-ness. If most of the people in your party are doing/saying the exact same thing that you are, you're not going to get brownie points for it.

Which is the point I'm usually making about Sanders and the black vote. Not that Sanders has been indifferent to black issues but that he hasn't done anything to distinguish himself as a proponent of said issues in the last 25 years or so. At least, nothing that I'm aware of and no one is pointing me to anything. Instead, he's done what all of the Democrats have been doing for years on end and his supporters want to treat it as it's unique.

Someone mentioned Jesse Jackson earlier...do you know how many Democrats supported Jesse Jackson's run for the nomination? Jesse Jackson wasn't out there by himself with no support but that of other black people. So simply endorsing Jackson for President wouldn't make someone a special kind of Democrat. It would them part of the rank and file.

You're not going to get an argument out of me that Sanders' accomplishments in the Senate, in terms of drafting and passing legislation, is scant. If that's the standard, then he's not going to pass (which is another reason he's a lot like Ron Paul). But if the standard is voting properly, then he passes.

 

[panamaican]

You're not going to get an argument out of me that Sanders' accomplishments in the Senate, in terms of drafting and passing legislation, is scant. If that's the standard, then he's not going to pass (which is another reason he's a lot like Ron Paul). But if the standard is voting properly, then he passes.

But so does Hillary Clinton which is what many pro-Sanders people ignore.

She was rated 96% by the NAACP in the same year that they rated Sanders at 97%.

 

[in the]

But so does Hillary Clinton which is what many pro-Sanders people ignore.

She was rated 96% by the NAACP in the same year that they rated Sanders at 97%.

So Bernie really is part of the 1%.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Clinton doesn't need legislation for change, she served as the Secretary of State for an actual black President. The most politically powerful black person in the history of this country trusted her enough to put her in his Cabinet. Frankly, she doesn't need more than that to support the idea that she and black America are aligned ideologically. It doesn't matter if you disagree or I disagree - she held the post. So, it's not a strawman to ask what Sanders has done to even out that impression.

I didn't realize Michelle Alexander was posting under your account. Or put another way - you're the one typing. Take some personal responsibility, lol.

So what that he supported Jesse Jackson? Jesse Jackson supported the Clintons. Do you see where that leads us?

And I don't need to show you anything that the Clinton's did - they've had black Democratic support for decades - clearly black people in the Democratic party have seen enough to make them support her over the GOP. What you need to do, and are seemingly incapable of accomplishing, is to show what Bernie has done since Bill Clinton's first term that shows his affinity for black issues over that of Hillary Clinton.

But since you won't do your own homework (Which is really the worst part of these "Bernie loves black people" posts - the idea that some candidate is good for black people without actually pointing to something concrete politically to support it.):
http://www.theroot.com/articles/pol...ry_clinton_who_s_better_for_black_voters.html

OK Gumbi.

 

[panamaican]

OK Gumbi.

That's clever stuff. Do you mind if I use it next time I want to lose an argument?

 

[VivaRevolution]

That's clever stuff. Do you mind if I use it next time I want to lose an argument?

I dont trademark words.....I hate corporatists.